Our speeches to the Scrutiny Committee, Regeneration & Planning Committee and Executive Committee of the Lee Valley Regional Park Authority on Thursday 18th November.
We are sharing our concerns about the continued commitment to investing a large amount of capital into leisure venues, whilst the protection and enhancement of our green spaces seems to come a very poor second, despite the climate and ecological emergency.
We would also like to see much more robust opposition to the high towers being proposed around the marshes which are not compliant with policy on height or visual impact and will have a negative impact on biodiversity.
Executive Committee meeting
Save Lea Marshes welcomes the discussion that will take place at today’s Scrutiny Committee meeting about establishing an environmental policy. It is critical, if we are to escape the very worst of climate change and biodiversity collapse, that we put the needs of the environment first when making decisions. This applies to individuals, and all the more so to organisations that manage green spaces on behalf of the public.
With this in mind, we would urge you to consider the choices you are making at this meeting. If we have read the papers correctly, you are proposing to pay for routine maintenance to the venues from capital expenditure, but are planning to wait for Section 106 money to fix the problem of no water in Middlesex Filter Beds. We have been promised a sluice for several years now and you are in breach of your Higher Level Stewardship Agreement with Natural England, and losing out on that revenue, by not dealing with the problem.
Today is a great opportunity to demonstrate that your nascent environmental policy is not greenwashing, by committing to pay for the sluice from capital expenditure and sending a strong signal to the public that you think the open spaces in the park are as important to you as the venues.
Regeneration and Planning Committee meeting
It was interesting to see that you have many of the same concerns as Save Lea Marshes about the development at the Lea Bridge Station sites, and we note that you believe these concerns can be allayed with Section 106 money. Please can you explain what you have asked for, in terms of Section 106 money, and what you intend to spend that money on?
Scrutiny Committee meeting
Save Lea Marshes welcomes the introduction of an environmental policy. It is critical, if we are to escape the very worst of climate change and biodiversity collapse, that we put the needs of the environment first when making decisions. This applies to individuals, and all the more so to organisations that manage green spaces on behalf of the public.
We noted with interest that you do not want to develop a weak policy or a policy that can be accused of greenwashing. That is commendable. However, as it currently stands, the policy is both weak and an exercise in greenwashing. It needs to be much, much bolder.
The Authority must not ‘aspire’ to be an exemplar of environmental innovation and best practice; it must ‘be’ an exemplar of environmental innovation and best practice. It cannot do this by considering ‘how far we can go to support environmental actions without damaging our core objectives’; it must change those core objectives to put the environment first. It cannot do this by accepting that the Authority cannot impose its standard on third-parties; it must make working to the Authority’s high environmental standards a condition of contracts.
The grounds maintenance contract is a very good example of a contract that could be made much, much, much more environmentally friendly. At the moment, it is heavy on tidiness and light on nature. Leaves are not ‘debris’; they do not need to be tidied away and they do not need to be tidied away with noisy, fossil-fuel driven leaf blowers. Leaves should be left to rot in situ, to nourish the earth. This is absolutely essential for improved biodiversity.
Talking of biodiversity, the policy seems to be limited to sites with designations. It should apply to all green spaces within the park.
There should also be a blanket ban on pesticides, insecticides and fertilisers, all of which disrupt the natural processes that should be allowed to flourish and be given the time to self-correct.
Where is the discussion of rewilding and a commitment to protect the green spaces within the park from development?
And where is the commitment to ensuring farming businesses within the park reduce leachate?
There is lots to be commended about the drive to establish an environmental policy that is regularly scrutinised, but please don’t waste this wonderful opportunity by signing off a policy without teeth.