This is the second in our weekly series of objections to the LVRPA’s plans to build a new Ice Centre on Leyton Marsh. This one is from Peter. His argument focuses on the question of building on Metropolitan Open Land (MOL). Because the building is to be on MOL, and there are very specific rules about building on MOL, it is sufficient to demonstrate that the rules have been breached to prove that the LVRPA’s plans must be rejected.

Objection to Planning Application 194162

Lee Valley Ice Centre, Lea Bridge Road, Leyton, London E10 7QL

8th March 2020

I wish to object to the planning application for a new ice centre on the Lea Bridge Road.

The applicant is the Lee Valley Regional Park Authority (LVRPA). The plan entails demolishing the existing building and replacing it with a new one, approximately twice the size. The site is Metropolitan Open Land (MOL). In paragraphs 7.3 to 7.5 of the Planning Statement the LVRPA admits that the development would be “inappropriate”, as defined by the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF); and explains in paragraph 5.7 of the same document that as a consequence such a development can only be allowed if there are very special circumstances (VSC) that outweigh the harm caused by building on MOL.

Very special circumstances (VSC)

The LVRPA claims that the following considerations constitute VSC. In this section, all paragraph references are to the Planning Statement.

1. The LVRPA’s “duty”. Paragraph 16.21 states that the LVRPA “has a statutory duty to develop sports and leisure facilities in the Regional Park. Since 95% of the Park is Green Belt or MOL, it is likely that some new facilities will be developed on protected land.” But this is misleading and a non-sequitur. The LVRPA has a “statutory duty” to do many things under the 1966 Act, as spelt out in paragraph 2.5 – the provision of sports and leisure facilities constitutes only one part (and not necessarily the most important part) of its functions. But, more importantly, there is nothing in the 1966 Act that suggests that the need to provide such facilities entitles the LVRPA to override other considerations. As for the statement that “some new facilities will be developed on protected land”, this has no basis at all. The 1966 Act gives no details about the minimum provision of any particular facilities; therefore it must follow that such provision should be subject to all other relevant constraints. There is no basis for arguing that the need to provide a specific facility constitutes a VSC. The fact that the LVRPA currently provides skating facilities to the public does not place any obligation on it to go on doing so. Until 2012, the LVRPA provided golfing facilities at the Waterworks. When it stopped doing so, this was not because of any lack of demand from the public; rather it was because it thought that it could make more money by using the Waterworks site for other purposes.
2. The need to have an operational ice centre. The present ice centre is nearing the end of its life, and will soon no longer be able to function. The LVRPA argues in paragraph 10.15 that the need to replace it before it expires is a VSC, because it is inconceivable that there should come a time when such a facility should not be available in this part of London. But this dependence is entirely of the LVRPA’s own making: if the LVRPA had not built the current ice centre (in the 1980s), then there would be no particular demand to build a bigger and better one now. Nevertheless, it is very possible that the London Borough of Waltham Forest (LBWF) would wish to have an ice centre somewhere within the borough, but there is no a priori reason why it should be on LVRPA land, or indeed why it should be provided by the LVRPA. When considered from this point of view, it is clear that there is no VSC involved here.
3. There is no other twin-pad ice centre in London. The LVRPA asserts in paragraph 10.42 that this is a VSC, but does not explain why.
4. Increased usage. In paragraphs 10.43 to 10.56, the LVRPA explains how a larger ice centre will result in more availability to the public and more availability to sports clubs – which will better enable it to fulfil its “duty” (as described earlier) and so this is also a VSC. But a closer reading of paragraph 10.48 shows that this is just a way of saying that the LVRPA will earn more revenue from a larger facility. Such a commercial argument cannot constitute a VSC.
5. Community benefits. In Section 11, the LVRPA describes the benefits that would accrue to the community from the new ice centre and claims them as a VSC. Many of these may indeed be genuine benefits, but the suggestion that they constitute a VSC depends crucially upon the premise that there is no other possible location for the new ice centre. It is also worth noting that these are benefits that could accrue only to some subsections of the “community”. No consideration is given to harm that the presence of the ice centre might cause to other subsections of the community.
6. Health benefits. In Section 12, the LVRPA describes the health benefits that may result from the new ice centre and claims that they also constitute a VSC. The situation here is analogous to the community benefits described above. They may be genuine benefits, but they could only be considered to be a VSC if there is no other possible location for the new ice centre. And again, while the presence of the ice centre may be beneficial to some people (those who patronize it), it will have the opposite effect on other people (those who would enjoy this area of Leyton Marsh if it were undeveloped).

As explained above, the LVRPA’s case is founded upon a number of premises:

1. That there must be an ice centre. This is not a foregone conclusion. It is up to the LBWF not the LVRPA to decide how important it is that there should be an ice centre in the borough.
2. That the ice centre must be provided by the LVRPA. This has not been demonstrated. The LVRPA has a duty to provide some sporting and leisure facilities, but there is obviously no duty to provide facilities for every single possible sport and leisure use. Before the 1980s the regional park did not have an ice centre – and there are any number of sports and leisure uses that the park does not cater for now and probably never will.
3. That the new ice centre must be located at the Lea Bridge Road site. If it could be located elsewhere, then it cannot be argued that its benefits (being general, not site-specific) constitute a VSC for the Lea Bridge Road site. I shall discuss this point more fully in the following section.

Alternative location

The LVRPA has explained that it originally considered four possible sites – the Waterworks (WW), Pickets Lock (PL), Eton Manor (EM) and the existing site (LVIC) – for the new ice centre. It used a scoring matrix to determine which was the best site. The results of this were LVIC 74.6%, WW 72.6%, EM 70.6% and PL 65.1%.; and so this is the reason why the existing site was chosen as the preferred location for the new ice centre. However, such a scoring system can only be as reliable as the values that are input into it, and these values are themselves subjective. Even at the time the original scoring matrix was drawn up in 2016, several of these values were clearly wrong. If these erroneous input scores were adjusted to more appropriate values, LVIC’s overall score would reduce to 73% and EM’s would increase to 76%, thereby making EM the preferred choice.

The LVRPA has now revised the scoring matrix, and submitted this revised version in this planning application. This has been done because certain facts have changed in the three years since the original matrix was drawn up. It includes two new sites: Broxbourne (B) and the Thames Water depot (TW). In this version the results are LVIC 77.66%, TW 75.84%, PL 62.82%, EM 62.78%, WW 60.8% and B 51.76%. However, this version is just as problematic as the previous version, as I shall demonstrate. For brevity, I shall consider only LVIC and EM.

1. Accessibility from existing catchments. This appears to mean: How easy will it be for people visiting the existing centre to visit the new centre instead? It has a weighting of 12. Why such a high value? Why should it matter particularly to the LVRPA whether people visiting the new centre are exactly the same as those visiting the existing centre? Before the existing centre was built (in 1981), there was no “existing catchment”, so any “need” for skating facilities that now exists is entirely a consequence of the LVRPA’s decision to create the existing centre in the first place. As it happens, both LVIC and EM are similar distances from the same population centres, so they can be expected to attract much the same clientele. In any case, the methodology behind this assessment is objectionable, because it is based upon an estimate of 30 minutes’ drive-time. The LBWF should assess facilities according to the requirements of users of sustainable transport not car drivers.
2. Adjacencies of other leisure uses. Both sites have been given a score of 4. This is plainly absurd. There are several leisure uses adjacent to EM of a sporting type, which are exactly the sort of uses likely to appeal to patrons of a skating rink; whereas next to LVIC there is only the Riding Centre. Consequently EM should have a higher score. The LVRPA claims that some leisure uses are “complementary” to skating whereas others are not, but this distinction seems to be entirely arbitrary.
3. Sporting authority stakeholder support. This refers to how supportive other sporting bodies will be to the new ice centre. EM scores much lower than LVIC, because England Hockey is located next-door to EM and would therefore be prevented from undertaking activities that might have an effect outside its precincts, for example excessive car-parking at peak periods. But this is unacceptable. There is contention for space all over London, and organizations must learn to live within existing constraints. One organization should not be able to dictate to another organization where it can locate merely because it is unwilling to submit to the additional discipline that that would entail. This is particularly pertinent in the case of car-parking. Given the declaration of a climate emergency, organizations should be reducing the use of cars, not allowing it to increase. Therefore the weighting for this item should be reduced.
4. Community stakeholder support. From the narrative accompanying the new matrix, it is apparent that the “community” here consists of those people who responded to the LVRPA’s consultation. The vast majority of these will be users of the existing ice centre; so inevitably the scores will be biased in favour of LVIC.
5. Access by car. This has a weighting of 15, whereas the criteria for access for cycle and for foot both have a weighting of 5. This cannot be justified. The London Boroughs of both Hackney and Waltham Forest have a strategy of prioritizing walking and cycling over driving. Therefore the weighting for driving must be lower than for walking and cycling. It is disgraceful that the LVRPA should need to have this pointed out.
6. Access by public transport. The LVRPA gives LVIC a score of 3 and EM a score of 2. The narrative explains that this is because LVIC has a higher PTAL rating. For the original version of the scoring matrix the LVRPA drew up a list of typical destinations together with journey times between each destination and the ice centre. If you calculate these journey times now (in March 2020) using the TFL Journey Planner (https://tfl.gov.uk/), you will find that on average the times from LVIC are 2 minutes higher than those from EM. (These calculations may be found in Appendix B.) For that reason, the score for EM should be at least as high as that for LVIC.
7. Fit on site. The LVIC has a score of 5, and EM 4. However, the narrative admits that the new building will fit onto both sites. EM is given a lower score because it will provide less scope for the “public realm and landscape opportunities”. But this should be treated as irrelevant. EM is right next to a busy road, not in a location that people are going to visit except to go to the ice centre. By not building the ice centre at LVIC there will be plenty of scope for the LVRPA to spend money on the “public realm and landscape opportunities” at the vacated LVIC site. Therefore EM should have the same score as LVIC.
8. Ice centre and on-site parking. This has a weighting of 15; LVIC has a score of 5, and Eton Manor 1. Firstly, the weighting is far too high: the LBWF should be doing everything possible to reduce reliance on cars, so it is very wrong to allow policies to be driven by the needs of car-drivers. Secondly, there are plenty of car-parking spaces in the vicinity of EM. It is only because of a willingness to acquiesce to the hegemonic demands of England Hockey next-door that there is felt to be a shortage of spaces. In any case, one wonders whether the LVRPA genuinely considers that there is a shortage of parking at EM, in light of the fact that it is proposing to build a hotel on the site. Clearly the score for EM should be increased.
9. Grounds/landscape constraints. LVIC has a score of 4, and EM 2. The narrative explains that EM’s low score is because it “is known to have poor ground conditions, that will likely result in significant piling of the site”. However, this should be taken with a pinch of salt. The LVRPA is currently proposing to build a hotel at EM. Such a building, consisting of several storeys, would exert far greater pressure on the ground than the proposed ice centre, with only two storeys and containing a lot of empty space. In any case, no mention is made of the facts that: firstly, EM is a fairly barren site close to a motorway, whereas LVIC is close to an SSSI; and secondly, if the ice centre is built at LVIC this will entail felling a number of mature trees, whereas there are no mature trees at EM. Therefore the score for EM should be at least as high as that for LVIC.
10. Cost and ability to develop the scheme. LVIC has a score of 3, and EM 2. The narrative explains that EM has a lower score because the above-mentioned need for piling will increase the building cost. But it does not mention the additional cost that will incurred at LVIC by the complications of staging the building work, in other words scheduling it in such a way that skating facilities remains available to the public for as long as possible while the building is going on. This additional cost would not apply to EM.
11. Impact on business plan. The LVIC has a score of 5, and EM 3. LVIC has a higher score because it is reckoned that a gym at LVIC would be more profitable than one at EM. This is because, according to the narrative, there are more gyms already in the vicinity of EM. However, the copy of Google Earth at Appendix C shows that the numbers of gyms near the two sites are exactly equal (3 within a radius of half the distance between the two sites, and 9 within a radius of the distance between the two sites). So the two sites should have the same score. (Incidentally, it is obvious that the LVRPA does not sincerely believe that the proximity of gyms is a relevant consideration, since it is proposing that the hotel at EM should itself include a gym. See paper RP/38/20 paragraph 15 in https://www.saveleamarshes.org.uk/DocumentSearch/display.php?Document=338)
12. Continuity of service. LVIC has a score of 1, and EM 4. The LVIC’s low score is a reflection of the fact that there will be a period between closing down the old ice centre and the first phase of the opening of the new ice centre during which there will be no skating possible. However, there is no reason why EM’s score cannot be 5, since in its case the first phase of the opening of the new ice centre can take place before the old ice centre is closed down. The narrative explains that the ice pad at the old centre will be transferred to the new centre in the second phase, but there is no reason why that should cause an interruption in service at the new centre.
13. Accordance with government guidance. Both sites are accorded a score of 4. However, the narrative includes the proviso “it has been assumed that Very Special Circumstances (VSC) can be demonstrated”. This is, of course, precisely what is disputed. Since it cannot be assumed that VSC can be demonstrated, the scores for both sites should be reduced. In LBWF’s Green Belt and Metropolitan Open Land Review (https://walthamforest.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Waltham%20Forest%20Green%20Belt%20and%20Metropolitan%20Open%20Land%20Study_2015%20Low%20Res%20%281.1%29%281.0%29%20%281%29.pdf) and Green Belt and MOL Assessment Sheets (https://walthamforest.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Green%20Belt%20and%20MOL%20Assessment%20Sheets.pdf), the value of both LVIC (referred to as “MOL3”) and EM (referred to as “MOL6”) as MOL are assessed. LVIC is deemed to merit its designation fully because it satisfies all 4 criteria, but EM is deemed less worthy of the designation because it satisfies only 3 of the 4 criteria. For that reason the score for LVIC should be reduced further than that for EM.
14. Accordance with local plan policies. LVIC has a score of 3, EM a score of 1. EM has a lower score because it “is allocated for another use, as a designated playing field, and is identified for five a side football in the LLDC Local Plan”. But again, one wonders how relevant this is, since it does not seem to present an obstacle to the afore-mentioned plans to build a hotel on the site, nor to the afore-mentioned objections from England Hockey.
15. Accordance with Green Belt MOL policy. LVIC has a score of 2 and EM a score of 1. The narrative explains that LVIC “is largely previously developed land, and the development would have less than significant impact on openness compared to the current existing site [presumably existing building is meant]”, and that EM “would have significant impact on current openness as there are no existing structures on the site”. This is plainly absurd. Firstly the new building is twice the size of the old one, so it will certainly have a significant (detrimental) impact on openness. Secondly, if the new building were located at EM, then the site at LVIC could be cleared, thereby resulting in a significant improvement in openness. So the question boils down to whether openness at EM is more or less valuable than at LVIC. In view of the remarks about MOL above, it follows that it is more valuable at LVIC. Therefore the scores should be swapped round.
16. Regeneration benefits. LVIC has a score of 5 and EM a score of 4. This is because LVIC is within 3 areas designated in the London Plan, whereas EM is in only 1 such area. However, the narrative does not explain why that entitles LVIC to a higher score than EM. The one thing that is certain is that the area around LVIC needs less development, not more.
17. Planning potential. LVIC has a score of 4 and EM a score of 2. This is simply a reflection of the fact that the LVRPA reckons that LVIC has a greater likelihood of being approved than EM. That is of course an entirely circular argument: you should grant planning permission for the new ice centre at LVIC rather than at EM because we think you are more likely to grant planning permission for it at LVIC than at EM!

At Appendix A there is a copy of the Scoring Matrix. The LVRPA’s scores and weightings are on the left. Where a value has increased from the original (2016) matrix it is coloured red; where it has decreased it is coloured green. (The original matrix is not shown, to avoid confusion.) On the right the scores and weightings are corrected to resolve the issues described above. Where a value has increased from the LVRPA’s value it is coloured red; where it has decreased it is coloured green. As can be seen, the overall score for LVIC reduces from 971 (78%) to 912 (73%), and the overall score for EM increases from 785 (63%) to 964 (77%), as a result of these modifications.

Conclusion

The new ice centre cannot be built on the site of the existing ice centre unless Very Special Circumstances (VSC) can be demonstrated. Most of the points that the LVRPA present as VSC are not valid. It might be possible to argue that some of the benefits (community and health) are VSC. However, these benefits are general, not specific to any one location. Therefore, if there are alternative possible locations for the new ice centre, these benefits cannot be counted as VSC either. I have demonstrated, using the LVRPA’s own methodology, that at least one other site (Eton Manor) is at least as acceptable as the existing site. Therefore there are no VSC for the existing site. Therefore it must be rejected.

Peter Mudge, on behalf of Save Lea Marshes