Object to the Lea Bridge Station Sites Development to stop more towers surrounding the marshes

The Motion Towers as viewed from Walthamstow Marshes

Please help us avoid the awful spectacle of yet more high-rise towers crowding the marshes and ruining the open landscape forever.

Ideally please object to the planning application for the Lea Bridge Station Development, which is out for public consultation, by the end of 27th September. Relevant objections should be considered after this time.

Proposed tall towers situated next to the current Motion Towers

You can use any of our objection to support your submission. Here are some bullet points you may wish to include:

  • The Lea Bridge Framework is still under consideration and no planning application for this area should be brought forward until it is complete, otherwise it is rendered useless. Similarly, the application cannot rely on the Emerging Site Allocation because it is part of the Draft Local Plan and is yet to be fully scrutinised.
  • The Planning Statement states that the development will provide publicly accessibly green space yet it will destroy existing green space at Orient Way Pocket Park, home to 125 semi-mature and early-mature trees. If Waltham Forest Council is serious about its commitment to the climate emergency, then it should be safeguarding mature trees because of the important role they play in mitigating the effects of climate change. New trees are not a substitute for mature trees and new green space is not a substitute for existing green space.
  • The fact that there is no social housing planned is unacceptable.
  • The proposed development will have a detrimental impact on air quality during construction and, when complete, by increasing the number of people living in the area with cars and removing the mitigating effect of the trees in the Orient Way Pocket Park.
  • The Planning Statement says that the site is not affected by tidal flooding. However, the site is situated on the flood plain of the Lee Valley, which will be increasingly subject to flooding. The Planning Statement acknowledges that parts of the site are indeed at risk of fluvial flooding. Our floodplain should not be developed; it should remain undeveloped and permeable.
  • Building 23-story and 26-story tower blocks in this location constitutes significant over-development, especially as the location is not identified as a location for tall building development in the adopted Development Plan.
  • Astonishingly, the Planning Statement claims that these tower blocks will have a ‘moderately beneficial impact’ on the Lee Valley Regional Park and other open spaces. This is clearly contrary to any reasonable understanding of openness.
  • Waltham Forest Council has declared a Climate Emergency and this over-development on a flood plain runs contrary to combating climate change locally.

Save Lea Marshes Full Objection

To: Planning Department, Waltham Forest Town Hall, Fellowship Square, 701 Forest Road, Walthamstow, London E17 4JF

dmconsultations@walthamforest.gov.uk

Dear Waltham Forest Planning Committee,

Re: Planning Application 212685 – Lea Bridge Station Sites

We object to the Proposed Development for the following reasons:

1. Lea Bridge Framework

1.1 The Planning Statement refers to the Lea Bridge Regeneration Masterplan which states that the development:

2.27 Delivers a mix of uses which align with the GLA and LBWF objectives for the Lea Bridge Regeneration Masterplan;

1.2 However, it makes no mention of the Lea Bridge Framework which is still under consideration. How is it possible to proceed with a major development in an area as yet without a Framework? How can any Framework, which is still being considered, have any point when plans for such a key section of the neighbourhood are already decided? Plainly any Framework is rendered pointless by this application. This is the most important site in the area already decided.

1.3 The Planning Statement later refers to the Emerging Site Allocation

7.13 LBWF’s vision for the Site is sought to be enshrined within planning policy through the emerging site allocation proposed within the draft LBWF Local Plan Part 2 (ref. SA07).

1.4 However, this reveals that not only is there no Framework for the area but the Local Plan on which this planning application is based is a Draft Plan. So in fact there is a lack of concrete agreed planning guidance available.

2. Pocket Park green space and biodiversity net gain in the development

2.1 The Planning Statement refers erroneously to the Orient Way Pocket Park, a green space with 125 mature trees, being ‘developed’.

7.9 It is important to note that the three sites have been identified for development by LBWF through a longstanding regeneration programme of the Lea Bridge area. This is sought be formalised through the emerging site allocation in the draft Local Plan Part 2. Therefore, to deliver the aspirations of the site allocation and wider policy designations such as the opportunity area and housing zone, development of the pocket park at site 2 is required.

2.2 The Pocket Park is not being developed, it is being demolished.

2.3 The Planning Statement goes on to say the development will provide a publicly accessible green space:

2.27 Provides publicly accessible green space for the wider community to utilise

2.4 However, there is already a publicly accessible green space for the community which the project will demolish.

2.5 The Planning Statement recognises there will be a loss of open space but seeks to reduce the significance of this space by referring to it as ‘undesignated’ and ‘informal’ and by referring to the trees in dismissive terms. Whether or not it is designated or informal makes precisely no difference in terms of its ecological value.

3.13 Site 2 measures approximately 0.62 hectares and is currently used as an informal open space with footpaths with an area of adopted public highway and road on the northern edge. It features some semi-mature and early mature trees. It is important to note that Site 2 includes one TPO tree, a Sycamore, number T72.

7.10 The Proposed Development will bring significant planning benefits to Lea Bridge and the wider borough which outweigh the loss of this undesignated open space. Furthermore, the proposals include more usable public realm and landscaping improvements including a net gain of trees across the Site which results in a substantial biodiversity net gain.

2.6 Plainly, if left to grow the existing semi-mature and early mature trees will become mature trees a lot more quickly than any newly planted trees.

2.7 The applicant claims there will be substantial biodiversity net gain.

7.271 The Proposed Development seeks to retain three existing plane trees along Orient Way (numbers T26-T28). There are currently 125 existing trees with 122 to be removed. It is then proposed to replant 144 new trees. Therefore, there is a significant net gain of new trees as part of the proposed landscaping scheme.

2.8 The first thing to note about this alleged biodiversity net gain is it will depend on the trees actually surviving planting. The reality is many newly planted trees die a short time after being planted.

2.9 More than that, planting an extra few trees does not overcome the damage done by removing a large number of trees as the gain from retaining and allowing existing mature trees to continue to grow will last for years whereas the alleged gain from new planting will take years to be realised and may never occur; damage to small newly planted trees is a frequently reported occurrence.

2.10 Moreover, the nature of the green space will change. It will lack the same mass and density. The new trees will be separated and scattered which will also make them more vulnerable to damage.

2.11 If Waltham Forest is looking for significant biodiversity gain from this development the easiest way to achieve this would be to improve the planting and habitat in the existing Orient Way Pocket Park. It is precisely by failing to properly maintain or improve the existing green space that Waltham Forest is able to try to claim Biodiversity gain in the first place as this makes it possible to claim a replacement can better what is already there.

2.12 However, it is totally at odds with sense that a developer can claim biodiversity gain by demolishing an existing green space and replacing it with new trees which will take years, decades even, to grow when existing trees will continue to mature and the woodland of which they are part can be improved more easily and effectively by leaving that green space in place. The existing space’s capacity to provide biodiversity gain for the development as a whole is completely ignored.

2.13 It is worth noting that policy on Biodiversity includes making ‘improvements to existing natural environments’:

7.277 Emerging Local Plan Part 1 Policy 81 (Biodiversity and Geodiversity) states that: • All development should maximise opportunities to create new or make improvements to existing natural environments, nature conservation areas, habitats or biodiversity features and link into the wider green infrastructure network;

2.14 Maximising these opportunities will best be achieved by retaining and improving the existing Pocket Park green space and this is consistent with policy.

2.15 It is also the case that the benefits in terms of climate change, an emergency supposedly declared by Waltham Forest Council, of a denser area of woodland will greatly outweigh even a few extra scattered trees, assuming they survive, which will take years to grow, whereas an existing green space can be improved and further trees can be planted.

2.16 The demolition of this Pocket Park makes no sense in any of these respects.

3. Affordable Housing

3.1 The Planning Statement contains the following:

7.90 Policy H6 of the London Plan states that in order to satisfy the threshold approach to affordable housing on a habitable room basis 30% should comprise genuinely affordable homes, 30% intermediate homes and 40% to be agreed with the Borough.

7.91 At a local level, LBWF Development Management Policy DM3 (Affordable Housing Provision) stipulates a tenure split of 60% social/affordable rented units and 40% intermediate housing units.

7.93 The scheme does not meet the requirements of the adopted or emerging Local Plan as a tenure split of 50% shared ownership and 50% London affordable rent is proposed.

3.2 The development does not provide any genuinely affordable housing and will not assist those in housing need in Waltham Forest.

3.3 When trying to encourage people to agree to its constantly repeated ‘vibrant’ neighbourhood Waltham Forest tried to set the need for ‘affordable housing’ against people’s concerns over height, see screenshot below. Plainly if people ‘voted’ for lower towers, even if they had good reasons to be concerned, such as they considered they would have a negative effect on the neighbouring Marshes, they were put in the position of being against ‘affordable’ housing.

Section from the ‘consultation’

3.4 However, the reality is the development does not produce genuinely affordable housing so the consultation was misleading.

4. Air Quality

4.1 The development will have negative effects on the Marshes. One of these will be in terms of increased traffic and thus congestion and pollution on Lea Bridge Road.

7.249 of the Planning Statement references air quality but fails to record that the development at Lea Bridge Station is likely to draw more traffic on to Lea Bridge Road where it passes Leyton Marsh and the Ice Centre, further increasing congestion and air pollution on that section of Lea Bridge Road.

4.2 There is no discussion of how this development will combine with the development of a double size Lee Valley Ice Centre at Leyton Marsh. The development of a double size ice centre complex, which intends to bring skaters and visitors from across the nation and not just the region, will further add to the flow of traffic through the area, even if the Lea Valley Regional Park Authority says it wishes to reduce car usage. The reality is the poor public transport connections in the area and the fact that Ice Centre users do not use train services, as evidenced in the LVRPA’s own travel plan documents, will mean more people will travel by car to the Lea Bridge area from further afield.

5. Flood risk and Climate Change

5.1 The Planning Statement states: 7.293 A Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) prepared by Waterman accompanies this Application. The site is not affected by tidal flooding, but parts of the site are at risk of fluvial flooding.

5.2 This statement is incorrect. The River Lea Valley is in danger of tidal flooding depending on the management of the Thames given the likelihood of sea rise. Climate Central has produced a map showing that a part of this site would be in danger of tidal flooding in ten years time. This does not take into account a longer time scale, see here

5.3. Regarding fluvial flooding, Waltham Forest Council produced a report in 2011 https://geosmartinfo.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/BEB15-Waltham-Forest-Level-2-SFRA.pdf which stated:

3.1.5 The River Lee Flood Relief channel was constructed in the 1970s and was built to accommodate an event of similar scale to the flood of 1947, which, at the time, was estimated to be a 1 in 70 event. As such, this structure no longer provides an adequate level of protection to the surrounding area. Furthermore, the North London Level 1 SFRA (Mouchel 2008) identifies that the level of protection is known to have been reduced further by extensive development in the upper catchment. 

5.4 Note the statement that extensive development has reduced the level of protection. That extensive development continues and will be further exacerbated by these developments.

5.5 The Planning Statement adds: 7.294 Due to a range of constraints pumped outfalls would be required on all three sites. Runoff will be discharged to the Thames Water public sewer network. Attenuation will be provided in the form of below ground tanks and permeable paving.

5.6 So, in recognition that the sites are vulnerable extra measures are required on a site which will become more vulnerable as time passes.

5.7 The Climate Emergency, which doesn’t seem to be specifically mentioned in these documents, despite being declared by Waltham Forest Council, is beginning to kick in.

5.8 This is a floodplain, another term seemingly avoided in this section of the document. Flood plains will be of vital importance in alleviating the longer term effects of climate change.

5.9 7.302 of The Planning Statement – the APZ (on archaeology) defines an area associated with the River Lea valley and its tributaries and is an area characterised by alluvial deposits which have been shown to preserve important archaeological remains dating from the Prehistoric period and later.

5.10 How curious that floodplain turns up in the section on archaeology, where reference is made to alluvial deposits.

Alluvium, material deposited by rivers. It is usually most extensively developed in the lower part of the course of a river, forming floodplains and deltas, but may be deposited at any point where the river overflows its banks or where the velocity of a river is checked—for example, where it runs into a lakehttps://www.britannica.com/science/alluvium

5.11 Climate change is considered in the Environmental Statement Part 1. This document makes the extraordinary statement that future climate conditions will have no bearing on this development:

2.66 The likely projected future conditions for each of temperature, precipitation, wind speed and cloud cover have been considered. It is considered that the magnitude of impact and resultant nature and scale of the effects of the Proposed Development during the operational phase will not be changed under the future climate conditions.

2.67 Overall, the likely effects of the Proposed Development are unlikely to change as a result of climate change

5.12 Considering the likelihood of severe weather conditions occurring as the Climate Emergency gathers pace and the location of this development in the Lea Valley floodplain, which also faces the possibility of tidal flooding arising from rising seas, these assertions seem extraordinarily dismissive of possible risks.

6. Gateways and tall buildings and the Lea Valley

6.1 Curiously, the Planning Statement admits the location is not identified as a location for tall building development. 

7.144 In summary, the Proposed Development is not identified as a location for tall building development within the adopted Development Plan.

6.2 Of course, this is then explained away. However, it remains the case that the existing guidance is that the site is not identified as a location for tall buildings. The further guidance in the remains in draft form.

6.3 The Introduction to the Design and Access Statement repeats the refrain so often found in Waltham Forest’s planning applications:

Marking the Gateway to Waltham Forest with elegant new buildings which signpost the new Lea Bridge station

6.4 Over and over terms like ‘Gateway’ and ‘landmark’ buildings appear in these documents as if tall buildings have some inherent value as territorial markers.

6.5 Waltham Forest uses a tree as its logo yet nowhere does one find any kind of reference to, recognition or appreciation of its green spaces, most particularly the Marshes, as a marker of the Borough’s boundaries, as a welcoming place to a Borough bearing the name of Forest.

6.6 Indeed later on Waltham Forest declares:

the Lee Valley occupies a strategic position in the London-Stansted Cambridge-Peterborough growth corridor and provides a range of development opportunities for higher density development including growth at Lea Bridge and Lea Bridge Roundabout”.

One might be forgiven for forgetting there is a green lung somewhere in this ‘corridor’.

6.7 Likewise the statement of Site Opportunities endlessly repeats this refrain

3.49 The Proposed Development Site does however have a number of opportunities through redevelopment to establish the area as a new ‘place’ and destination:

Gateway to Waltham Forest and the Lee Valley Regional Park. A visible and high-quality designed scheme can serve as an identifiable gateway to these areas and act as an attractor for further footfall and investment;

• Station identity on Site 1 – A tall building within Site 1, adjacent to the adjacent Lea Bridge Station entrance, can act as an identity for the new local centre, accentuating the station and its new public realm setting within the wider area;

• Views into the Lee Valley Regional Park – Taller buildings with residential uses located at this Proposed Development Site can take advantage of long vistas into Lee Valley Regional Park to the west.

6.8 Not only an identifiable gateway to Waltham Forest but also to the open spaces of the Lee Valley Park and of course, to the benefit of developers, vistas over those open spaces.

6.9 Once again Waltham Forest repeats its obsession with landmark buildings marking a gateway. Waltham Forest uses a logo of a tree to trademark itself yet at no point does the Borough take pride in its green spaces and take advantage of them as landmark features welcoming visitors to the Borough.

6.10 Everywhere the emphasis is on height. Yet this site is not identified as a location for tall buildings.

7. Description of the Marshes

7.1 The Planning Statement, while it makes mention of NPPF guidance, makes no mention of NPPF 133, which states:

The Government attaches great importance to Green Belts. The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence”(our emphases).

7.2 The term Green Belt applies to the Marshes, as Metropolitan Open Land has the same legal status as Green Belt.

7.3 Indeed, from what I have read this guidance is never mentioned in this application.

7.4 Leyton Marsh, which is not named and was recently described by the Chair of the Planning Committee as a ‘pretty scrubby, desperate piece of Metropolitan Open Land, it’s not like it’s a beautiful green meadow’, Walthamstow Marshes, the Waterworks Nature Reserve, the Waterworks Meadow, also not mentioned, will all be affected by the two towers being built on Site One. Hackney Marshes will also be affected. The Committee chair is welcome to her opinion of Leyton Marsh, although it is not one shared by those who enjoy the Marshes.

7.5 However, it reveals much about how Waltham Forest Council views the Marshes.

7.6 During the ‘consultation’ the same approach was adopted in describing the Marshes as an “apparently natural landscape” and “largely man-made”, see screenshot below.

7.7 This statement only reveals the ignorance of those seeking to diminish the importance of the Marshes as both a natural environment and a vitally important place of recreation.

7.8 Every landscape in Britain, including the Highlands of Scotland, is ‘largely’ man-made. The Highlands were covered in forest until people cut them down. Much of the present wilderness is the result of the eviction of cultivators in favour of sheep farming, new forestry or grouse shooting.

8. Impacts on the Marshes

8.1 Extraordinarily, in the Planning Statement, it is claimed that these towers will have a moderately beneficial impact on the Lea Valley Park and other open spaces

7.132 The significant likely effects will be to the visual receptors in the following views: 

• View 11 – Lee Valley Park, Moderate Beneficial;

• View 14 – Ive Farm Sports Ground, Moderate Beneficial; 

• View 18 – Walthamstow Marshes, Moderate Beneficial.

8.2 Towers will increase the sense of being enclosed which runs directly counter to the idea of open space, making nonsense of these claims.

8.3 The discussion about sites refers to the value of landmark buildings in terms of impacts on neighbouring open spaces. It has to be pointed out no NPPF guidance is cited for this claim. The guidance is entirely the opposite, that such buildings will negatively impact on neighbouring open space.

9. Visual amenity

9.1 The Environmental Statement Vol 2 Part 1 considers the impact of the development on local open spaces. It notes that some developments are visible, so the argument seems to run that as some are already visible why not some more? In fact it fails to mention that there are considerably more towers available both in Lea Bridge with the Gas Works Development and further north, as in the photo below, as already made known to Waltham Forest in the previous Save Lea Marshes Gas Works objection.

I also attach the objection from Save Lea Marshes to the recent Gas Works development which includes photographs from a number of different locations showing how those earlier developments have already had an impact on the visual amenity of the area.

9.2 Now two more, even taller buildings will be added to the list.

9.3 The applicant describes how existing existing blocks are visible and form “part of the surrounding in which this area is experienced”.

6.22 The location and open nature of Walthamstow Marshes, Lee Valley Park and Hackney Marshes affords a number of views towards the Site, the wider Lea Bridge area and Stratford. In views towards the Site, the existing Motion Development (Beck Square) is visible and forms part of the surrounding in which this area is experienced. In longer views, tall and large buildings marking the location of Stratford are visible and are characterised feature in views further south.

9.4 So as existing blocks are part of the surrounding in which this area is experienced some more blocks are ok? The wedge has already been driven in. Now it can be pushed in a bit further.

9.5 View 11 below is from the edge of Leyton Marsh and Walthamstow Marsh in the Lea Valley Park.

9.6 The applicant is keen to provide ‘context’ in that there are other tall buildings in the ‘townscape’. So why not some more?

10.170 The Proposed Development would be perceptible in the backdrop of the view and would introduce several new blocks of tall and large development into the townscape. Blocks would be recognised within the context of existing tall and large development along Lea Bridge Road, although the scale (height) of the proposals would become the tallest feature on the skyline

9.7 The development would be “perceptible in the backdrop of the view” and “introduce several new blocks”. So there are already blocks there. A few more will be “perceptible” and “introduced”. The context is of “existing” tall and large developments.

9.8 There is already tall development. Once the wedge is in the door can be pushed open further;

9.9 The point is made explicit in the 10.172 ‘this will not change the character of the backdrop of the view’.

10.172 The Proposed Development will form a new feature for the visual receptors, although this will not change the character of the backdrop of the view, which already includes tall development. The proposals will be seen over some distance which will contribute to reduce visual impact of the Proposed Development.

9.10 An attempt is made to moderate the impact. Distance will reduce the visual impact.

9.11 However, a further statement shifts back to the idea that tall landmark buildings will, in fact, ‘improve the visual impact’.

10.175 The Proposed Development would form an attractive skyline feature and will improve the visual amenity of the view with high quality architecture. It would give rise to a Moderate Beneficial likely effect. This likely effect is significant.

9.12 Then the cumulative view, see screenshot above, reveals another block, partly conveniently hidden by a bush, so now a line of blocks with the latest seriously altering the skyline. But no matter…

10.177 Where visible the cumulative development does not introduce a change to the visual receptors, nor does it change the magnitude of impact arising from the proposals. As a result, the likely effect would remain at Moderate Beneficial. These effects would be direct, long-term, permanent and is not significant.

9.13 So despite the arrival of new blocks there is apparently no change to the visual receptors on the Marshes nor any change to the magnitude of impact.

9.14 It has to be remembered that at one time there were no blocks here at all. The visual receptors are most definitely impacted and are steadily more impacted as new blocks are added.

9.15 All this is then repeated when referring to View 13 of the towers from Hackney Marshes, see screenshot below.

9.16 The blocks are now “an interesting feature” and have become “complementary”.

10.202 When viewed from this location, the form and massing of the blocks is simple and attractive, which creates an interesting feature on the skyline. The scale of the development varies across the Proposed Development Site with blocks varying in height between, 5, 11, 23 and 26 storeys. The height of the volumes is complementary to the adjacent Motion development, echoing the stepping effect of the existing building on the skyline. The slender volumes of Towers 1 and 2 rise to 23 and 26 storeys and mark the location of the development, Lea Bridge Road and the associated station.

9.17 Once again “perception”.

10.203 Over this distance, the observer will be able to readily perceive the architectural quality of the proposals. The façade of the blocks is primary formed of brickwork, whilst the crown of each building uses a mix of brick and concrete. The use of brick throughout the blocks ensures the development reads as one, although changes in their colour, band and detailing creates variation, further distinguishing the volumes from one another and reducing the overall perception of mass.

9.18 This is entirely fanciful. I very much doubt anyone will be able to make out the architectural quality, the brickwork, and changes in colour, banding and detailing of the towers from Hackney Marshes. They will simply be able to see a block of some kind rising above the tree line.

9.19 The argument then shifts to the idea that the blocks will only be “perceived” as part of an “existing backdrop” the impacts of which distance will reduce. 

10.204 The significant separating distance between the marshes and the Site would further reduce the magnitude of the visual impact and the Proposed Development would be perceived as part of the existing backdrop. The magnitude of impact to receptors would be Low.

9.20 Then in the next breath the argument shifts back to the blocks being an “attractive” skyline feature and will “improve” the visual amenity.

10.205 The Proposed Development would form an attractive skyline feature and will improve the visual amenity of the view with high quality architecture. In our professional judgment, for the reasons above, the Proposed Development would give rise to a Minor Beneficial effect. These effects would be direct, long-term, permanent and not significant.

9.21 Interestingly the language used seeks to mirror the references in the NPPF guidance, which it has failed to quote. Words like ‘visual amenity’ and ‘permanent’, although not “openness” find their way into the text.

9.22 The applicant then turns to consider the problem of this being yet another block surrounding the open space of the Marshes. The solution is to return to the idea of landmark buildings. The buildings mark out Lea Bridge and Leyton when being viewed from Hackney Marshes. It is assumed this is a good and necessary thing.

10.206 In the cumulative context, the black wirelines demonstrate further tall and large development in the backdrop of the view, and marks the location or development at Lea Bridge and Leyton.

9.23 And of course, “in the cumulative context” being among “further tall and large development” makes these blocks of less significance as they are now just a couple among several.

9.24 The applicant then moves into technical speak…

10.207 From this location, the visible cumulative scheme at Lea Bridge Gas Works (application ref. 201329) would contribute to the increased height datum in the backdrop of view and reduce the prominence of the Proposed Development within the view.

9.25 The “visible cumulative scheme” at the Gas Works adds to the ‘increased height datum in the backdrop of view’. In other words because there are (will be) blocks at the Gas Works the new blocks at Lea Bridge Station are just part of a development process which is leading to ever higher buildings towering over the Marshes and because these other blocks have already increased this ‘height datum’ everything is ok as they won’t be as prominent as they would have been if the Gas Works blocks weren’t (they aren’t yet) there.

9.26 Except of course it is now possible to see yet more cumulative and clearly defined sets of blocks rising over the treeline, where originally there were none, plainly greatly adding to the sense of intrusion and reducing the visual amenity and sense of openness of the Marsh.

9.27 No doubt the next towers will achieve a further ‘increased height datum in the backdrop of view’ which will in turn ‘reduce the prominence’ of the next set of blocks to be added to the jumble of blocks around the Marshes.

9.28 It is interesting to note that the applicant is prepared to provide images of the view of the new development when they are contained within the “existing townscape” as below, although even then  the image is obscured by a tree which could easily have been avoided, but not to transpose those images to show how they will appear on the Marshes.

9.29 To provide some idea of how these blocks will intrude on the Marshes I attach some images from an earlier objection by Save Lea Marshes to show how the Motion development appears from some viewpoints on the Marshes. These new towers will have a much greater impact than appears in the rather flimsy representations presented.

9.30 Existing view above of the Motion blocks from Leyton Marsh. The Station development will tower over the Motion development.

9.31 Existing view of the Motion blocks from Walthamstow Marsh

9.32 Existing view of the Motion blocks from the Waterworks Meadow, showing where the Gas Works blocks will be behind the FedEx warehouse. The Station blocks will tower over the Motion blocks

9.32 Above, the existing view of the Motion blocks from the Waterworks Nature Reserve.

9.33 Existing view of the Motion blocks from behind the Waterworks cafe

9.34 If these statements are taken to their absurd logical conclusion then the Lea Valley Park will be improved by more and more towers until it is surrounded by them, assuming of course these towers are of ‘high quality architecture’. How this fits with the NPPF guidance as quoted above is anyone’s guess:

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Object to the Lea Bridge Station Sites Development to stop more towers surrounding the marshes

  1. Jean Buckland says:

    We now know how important wild spaces are to the survival of species and the environment. We destroy them at our peril.

  2. Ellen Graubart says:

    Our wild spaces are precious and are being threatened all over the world, and every minute. We need to protect these diminishing spaces, not uproot and ‘remodel’ them. There seems to be a huge misunderstanding by so many architects of our environment of what the natural world is and how it functions. Ignorance, or arrogance?

Comments are closed.