A Vote to Save Our Marshes!

Posted on 6 May 2014 by Caroline Day

As election time approaches, it is useful to know which political parties and individual candidates intend to safeguard our marshes if elected this May. Save Lea Marshes has approached a number of electoral candidates in Hackney and Waltham Forest, requesting that they sign the following green pledge to protect our vital local green spaces, including the marshes:

“IF ELECTED I PLEDGE TO PROTECT GREEN SPACES IN WALTHAM FOREST/HACKNEY. I WILL WORK TO PROMOTE BIODIVERSITY, TO ERADICATE THE USE OF PESTICIDES WITHIN THE BOROUGH AND ENSURE THAT ALL RESIDENTS HAVE ACCESS TO WILD GREEN SPACES CLOSE TO HOME. 

Green spaces are not a luxury, affordable only during the good times, but fundamental to our individual and collective health and well being. Our environment IS our community.”

So far, the electoral candidates for the Green Party in both Hackney and Waltham Forest, the Trade Union Socialist Coalition in Waltham Forest and the Liberal Democrats in Hackney have all fully signed up to this pledge. There are 19 Green Party candidates in Waltham Forest who you can find here, the list of TUSC candidates is  and Green candidates for Hackney is here

The Green Party manifesto for Hackney includes a commitment to oppose “the development of damaging new buildings and large scale events on Hackney Marshes” Furthermore, they pledge to “ensure that council contractors are not allowed to spray with glyphosate, which is used indiscriminately at present and is bad for people’s health” and also recruit a full time biodiversity officer for the borough.

In Waltham Forest, the manifesto for the Liberal Democrats includes the following crucial commitment:

“We will use our open spaces to provide more wild areas and encourage biodiversity and keep Leyton Marshes & Wanstead Flats free from further development.”

The Liberal Democrat manifesto in Hackney describes how the present council “rides roughshod over local people’s wishes. The recent council plans to take new green space on Hackney Marshes to construct a car park for a cricket pavilion is just one example” and includes the following commitments to our green spaces:

“We will rebalance the use of Hackney’s parks and Hackney Marshes in particular away from large and noisy commercial concerts and towards fewer, smaller community events.”

“We will appoint a biodiversity officer to make sure that the council pursues a sustainable and consistent and “listening” environmental agenda across Hackney.”

All of the commitments relating to the environment in their manifesto can be read here

In Hackney, there will also be mayoral election for the position of directly elected mayor. Liberal Democrat mayoral candidate Simon de Deney has signed up to our green pledge. Independent candidate Mustafa Korel has signed up to our green pledge and all the specific commitments we recommend to preserve areas under threat from the present administration, including North Marsh, East Marsh, Mabley Green as well as adopting our practical measures to improve the dreadfully polluted the River Lea. You can read the list of these commitments in full here

Green mayoral candidate Mischa Borris has signed our green pledge, endorses all the environmental commitments made in the Green Party manifesto and has just published a vital statement supporting our campaign against the construction of an unnecessary 68 space car park on Hackney Marshes.

All candidates are free to get in touch with us, sign up to our green pledge and work with us on drafting appropriate manifesto commitments to safeguard our marshes and local green spaces. We will publish the details of who signs up to what on this page!

 

Posted in Lea Marshes | Tagged , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Our Objection to LVRPA’s Proposed New Moorings Path on Site of Importance for Nature Conservation on Leyton Marsh

Posted on 5 May 2014 by Caroline Day

Dear Shaun Dawson

Leyton Marsh riverbank moorings.

We are writing to protest at the Authority’s damage to the Site of Metropolitan Importance for Nature Conservation and the threat to public access on the riverside adjacent to Leyton Marsh, in connection with the recent renting by the Authority of de facto residential moorings.

A much-valued area of natural habitat is being turned into an area whose primary purpose is to provide access and amenity for the live-aboard vessels that have recently been persuaded to sign mooring agreements with the Authority in order to generate revenue.

The Authority proposes to excavate 132 square metres of existing habitat along the stretch of moorings, and replace it with a constructed path “for use by vessel owners”. This has already involved the mowing down of all standing vegetation which it appears will be routine if the path is built and the area ‘managed’ as an adjunct to the moorings. The reasons for our objection include:

  • The loss of wildlife habitat through mowing and cutting back of vegetation cover, and the installation of sterile path material designed to prevent plant growth.
  • The new path and clearance of the area for moorings use will harm the character of a formerly wild and natural area of the Park. It is contrary to Policy DM13 which requires character and biodiversity value to be preserved or enhanced.
  • It will offer no genuine benefit to regular marshes users, and the existing informal path has always been perfectly adequate as an enjoyable alternative to the adjacent Sandy Lane.
  • There is a real risk that the soil to be excavated is contaminated due to proximity to a historically polluted watercourse and the known contamination of the main body of Leyton Marsh.
  • Construction impacts are likely to be severe particularly if excavated spoil is dumped indiscrimately onto the adjacent vegetation as has been threatened in the planning application.

We also take exception to misleading claims made in support of the scheme in your recent planning application and correspondence with Cllr Ian Rathbone.

  • It is not the case that “There was a trail of trodden down undergrowth along the river bank where the vessel owners had created a ‘path'” . It is the original Lea towpath and has always been regularly walked by marshes users since long before boats began continuous mooring there.
  • The project will not “significantly reduce the impact of vessel owners on the habitat along the river bank”. The damage caused by the path and its construction, and the impact of intensive vegetation cutting, will far exceed any minor impacts of vessel owners’ activities.
  • The application form in section 13 wrongly claims that designated sites, important habitats or other biodiversity features within or adjacent to the development site will not be affected. This is untrue as the site lies within the M071 Site of Metropolitan Importance for Nature Conservation and its habitat value will undoubtedly be reduced.
  • The photographs of the site show it immediately after the vegetation had been razed by contractors with strimmers, so does not illustrate the previous landscape character or “existing muddy riverside path” as claimed.
  • We strongly object to the repeated use of the term “tidying up” to describe this loss of SMINC habitat and character.
  • The vessels were not “illegally moored” prior to signing agreements and paying rent to the Authority. The owners were not committing any criminal or actionable civil offence. However, the Authority is acting unlawfully in establishing and charging for what are in reality residential moorings and outside its statutory powers.
  • We are also very disappointed that yet again a project has been launched secretively without the wider public being informed via any of the channels available (noticeboards, User Forum/Management Workshop, email list), nor apparently has it been presented at any Authority meeting. This is in spite of repeated assurances that communication and public engagement is important and would be improved.

You cannot be unaware that building of additional footpaths and loss of habitat on the marshes has long been a sensitive issue, as has the process of creeping annexation and enclosure of open land for revenue raising purposes, and the associated sharp practices the Authority is prepared to engage in regarding planning approval.

We are unable to trust any assurances that the area of moorings will not eventually be enclosed for use only by moorings residents, as is the case at the existing Springfield Marina moorings.

We welcome people living on boats alongside the marshes as they have done up till now. But we firmly oppose the Authority changing the nature and usage of the riverbank by stealth to facilitate unlawfully raising income from the boat residents, and would urge you to cancel any further works.

Yours sincerely

Save Lea Marshes Group

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Our Objection to LVRPA’s Proposed New Moorings Path on Site of Importance for Nature Conservation on Leyton Marsh

Leyton Marsh Moorings: Statement by Concerned Boaters

Posted on 26 March 2014 by Caroline Day

A meeting of boaters concerned with the implementation of private moorings on the River Lea, London, at Leyton Marshes was held on the 21st March 2012.

The mooring site comprises a stretch of river bank approximately 150 metres long on the east side of the river Lea, and will provide moorings for perhaps 10 boats.  The land is designated as Metropolitan Open Land (MOL) and consists of open parkland, which is currently used for leisure and recreation by members of the public. Management of the mooring is being carried out by the Lea Valley Springfield Marina, which is owned and run by the Lee Valley Regional Park Authority (LVRPA).

Google Map link to the location:

The mooring site comprises the land on the east side of the river, south of the cattle grid in the adjacent Sandy Lane, and to the north of the nearby pedestrian bridge over the River Lea.

Sign at the mooring site:

Private moorings at Leyton Marsh

 

The site has been habitually used for many years as casual moorings by many different live-aboard boaters.  The boats moored at this site have been defined and licensed as Constant Cruisers (CC), which is a term used by the Canal and River Trust (CaRT), who manage the River Lea, to describe boats without a home mooring. These vessels are required to move to a new mooring every 14 days.

In 2012 Leyton Marshes was the subject of conflict between Olympic Delivery Authority and many local residents, dog walkers, and other concerned individuals and groups.  The conflict centred around temporary basketball courts which were built as part of the London Olympics.  Campaigners feared that the courts would set a precedent and that development and buildings would become permanent on the site.  The campaign turned quite nasty with campaigners imprisoned and slapped with claims for legal costs by the authorities. Trust between many locals and the LVRPA have not recovered, and many still fear a creeping development of the Marshes. The campaign group Save Lea Marshes (formerly Save Leyton Marsh) is opposing the imposition of the new moorings, which amounts to another privatisation of public space.

During the meeting boaters raised a number of issues and concerns over the Leyton Marsh mooring plan.  These are set out below.

1) The “privatisation” of this mooring site removes it from use by Constantly Cruised boats.

2) That the rental and privatisation of these moorings may set the precedent for other locations and leaves open the possibility that CaRT will work with the LVRPA to privatise and commercialise significant portions of the Lea.  Also this model could be used on other waterways in London and the rest of the country. This would mean a reduction in available mooring sites for the CC community.

3) A LVRPA report from 2013 (Note 1) shows the Park’s “concerns relate to the poor state of the boats”.

And in a letter dated 26th May 2011 to Sally Ash, Head of Boating at British Waterways (now CaRT) (Note 2) from the Lea Valley Park’s chairman says “I acknowledge the limitations on your powers to enforce against physical appearances.”

Lee Valley Springfield Marina, who have been inviting applications for the moorings on Leyton Marsh, require a photograph with the application.  One boater reported a Lea Valley employee informing her that she would be unlikely to be allocated a mooring due to the poor visual appearance of her vessel.

The LVRPA chairman’s wish for “powers to enforce against physical appearances” appears to have become a reality.

The above evidence was discussed at the meeting. All persons present at the meeting were unanimous in their condemnation of this, and agreed this constitutes a form of social cleansing.

4) The implementation of these moorings may be not be lawful insofar as virtually all boats in the area are live-aboard, but the new moorings are classified as “leisure”, i.e not live-aboard.  A residential mooring requires planning consent from the local authority.  These moorings do not have such permission, which is presumably why they are classified as “Leisure”.

5) Another question and concern raised at the meeting was whether any land adjacent to the moorings would be closed off. The group was concerned that if even the smallest amount of land was closed off this would mean a loss to the local community of MOL.  Concern was raised that although an enclosure of land may not be carried out now, it may eventually be enclosed, and as such form a gradual loss of MOL. However if no land is closed off the group wondered what benefit any boater paying for a mooring at the site would gain, especially because they would not benefit from any rights as residents owing to the fact that the LVRPA are claiming the moorings are not residential.

6)  The land registry shows that the land and river bed which constitute this mooring site is owned by the LVRPA, and has been for decades.

7)  The land immediately adjacent and parallel to the mooring appears to have a public right of way over it.

8)  The LVRPA report and letter mentioned above gave the meeting cause for concern due to the fact that it clearly regards live aboard boaters as a problem, not an asset.

Notes

(1) Lee Valley Regional Park Authority Scrutiny Committee 7 Nov 2013 at 1100.

 

(2) Letter included in the above report from Derrick Ashley, Chairman, Lee Valley Regional Park Authority to Sally Ash, Head of Boating at British Waterways. 26th May 2011

Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments

Piecemeal Privatisation of Lee Valley Regional Park

Posted on 17 March 2014 by Caroline Day

Ever since the temporary privatisation of Metropolitan Open Land for a private training facility on Porter’s Field Meadow (Leyton Marsh) for the London 2012 Olympics, we have seen a number of areas of previously open marshes enclosed and part-privatised.  The old golf course area by the Waterworks, turned into a private campsite for the London 2012 Olympics, was due to be restored in 2013. Now it is partly fenced off for a pony paddock, which only received permission for temporary use and was meant to be mobile.

IMG_2303

The area behind the Lee Valley Riding Centre received permission from Waltham Forest Council to be further developed for commercial horse livery. The adjacent paddock was consequently subdivided into tiny electrified pens, over-grazed by horses and left in a state that even shocked the Hackney representative on the LVRPA when he visited last month (see picture below). An agreement between the New Lammas Lands Defence Committee and the LVRPA was meant to see this land transformed every other year into a wildflower meadow for all. That was another broken promise, clearly.

Conditions of horses

Yet all of these enclosed or part enclosed spaces are Metropolitan Open Land (M.O.L.). M.O.L. is a unique designation for London that is meant to protect strategically important open spaces to serve the needs of Londoners. It has the same status in law as greenbelt.

The most recent form of ‘income generation’ from publicly owned assets will be from the waterways adjacent to Leyton Marsh. The Lee Valley Regional Park Authority has written a letter to all the boats mooring there temporarily on a continuous cruising licence informing them they must pay the Authority for a residential leisure mooring in order to remain. The letter claimed that the Springfield Marina is ‘responsible’ for the nine moorings on Leyton Marsh. The boats have been ordered to vacate unless they are willing to provide details of their licence, boat etc and are to pay for a permanent residential mooring at the site.

Work has already begun on the land in anticipation of this imposed arrangement, clearing it of undergrowth and mowing one of the few spots that had previously escaped the savage mow down every year. This is despite the fact that the towpath is part of the Metropolitan Site of Importance for Nature Conservation, which extends down to the water. The clearance was not discussed, consulted upon or approved at any previous LVRPA workshops or forums with the community.

New moorings

However, the propriety and legality of the LVRPA’s actions is doubtful. There is nothing in the byelaws restricting mooring and the Park Act sections 36 & 37 only deals with vessels ‘sunk, stranded or abandoned’ and houseboats in a condition ‘injurious to the amenity of the waterway’.

Derrick Ashley of the LVRPA argues that the LVRPA is opposed to residential moorings as they’re contrary to the statutory purpose of the park as a leisure destination – somewhat at odds with the fact that they’re making money from it and now trying to expand!

Moreover, the deeds which cover the area of the Willows, Leyton Marsh and the actual site of Springfield Marina itself state that the land was left in ‘perpetuity for public use.’ Yet the land is being rented for private use at commercial rates by the Marina, which is managed by the LVRPA.

At an Authority meeting we attended back in October 2012, the representative for Haringey, John Bevan reported on his ‘pleasing’ visit to the Marina, with the exception of the ‘junk boats’ he had seen there and on the waterways. He reported that they were working on a ‘solution’ to what he and the Marina management regarded as the problem of these boats.

Whilst each of these developments and changes in land use can be viewed in isolation, it is important to consider that there appears to be an overall pattern for restricting access and use of our marshes by the public for the purposes of so-called ‘income generation’. The history of this area, the nature of the land and the founding purpose of the Authority should be re-examined in the light of recent history. People gave up their commoners’ rights to grazing cattle on the marshes at the turn of the 20th century in return for use of the land freely and in ‘perpetuity’. All the marshes is Metropolitan Open Land. Legally development should only occur when such development is essential for ‘preserving open use’ of the land. Finally and perhaps most significantly here, the purpose of the Authority when it was established during the 1960s was to act as guardians of the land, preserving the whole park for public use.

Is the LVRPA following its remit by pursuing a focus upon ‘maximising the return on land and property assets’ as stated in its recent report? This report led members of the Authority to decide to transfer LVRPA venues (and in future possibly other assets including open spaces) over to a charitable Industrial Provident Society. The treatment of our open spaces in the recent past suggests whether or not public assets are managed by this unelected Trust or by the Authority, the focus will be on commercialisation of public land.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | 6 Comments

Winner of 2014 Save Lea Marshes Competition

Posted on 8 March 2014 by Caroline Day

The overall winner of the 2014 ‘What I Love About the Marshes’ photo competition was Rebecca McLaren with ‘Big Sky Over Ice’. Rebecca’s photo will go on the cover of the 2015 Save Lea Marshes calendar, along with 11 other winners, announced here:

Big Sky over Ice (copyright: Rebecca McLaren)

Big Sky over Ice (copyright: Rebecca McLaren)

Posted in Lea Marshes | Tagged | Comments Off on Winner of 2014 Save Lea Marshes Competition

Marshland: Dreams and Nightmares on the Edge of London

Posted on 22 February 2014 by Caroline Day
Gareth Rees, author of Marshland, on Hackney Marshes.

Gareth Rees, author of Marshland, on Hackney Marshes.

It’s never recommended to sneak a peak at the end of a book before you’ve finished. However, before I started reading Marshland properly (from the beginning as you should), I had already been invited by Rees to fact-check the chapter ‘Endgames’ which extensively features our campaign to try and save Leyton Marsh from the Olympic machine, a struggle set in its proper historical context via description of valiant  battles for our marshes by the commoners of the past, albeit from the standpoint of,  at times, a rather detached and weary narrator. Focused as I was solely on the accuracy of the facts, the nature of Rees’ Marshland definitely eluded me at this juncture, impressed as I was at Rees’ ability to both precisely and concisely convey these events whilst remaining non-plussed at his narrator’s borderline cynicism for the camp which had been established on Leyton Marsh in a fierce attempt to save it.

What mattered little was that I didn’t read the book in chronological order, since this heady mixture of fact and fiction exceptionally and masterfully weaves its way from past to present, to imagined past, to imagined future and back again. Anyone who has stumbled across the marshes as a solitary and unprepared visitor will share much of Rees’ surprised fascination with this unique place nestled in the heart of East London. Marshland is an apt title for an adventure taking place in a ‘land’ both far away in the past, mystical as a dark fairytale, giving hazy definition to the borders of this wild land, astonishingly still here in the present and reached by a number of regular London streets.

Rees’ wry and detached persona has elements of Self’s witty but misanthropic narration, yet contains a humanising reverence for the history and idiosyncratic splendour of the marshes. The opening of the journey is many ways the same humble and mundane one many of us take, from our familiar and at times claustrophobic modern domestic set-up, as we set off on a daily walk with our pet canine. Yet Rees elevates the narrative through a self-deprecating humour which afforded me more than a few laughs of familiar self-recognition, as his dog Hendrix lands him in some uncompromising positions by the river Lea. We’re led on inexorably to his ardour for the pylons dotted about the marshes. Whilst unusual, this love is somewhat infectious and  expressed with witty aplomb, avoiding getting tangled up in the type of obscure prose that has put me off the works of other highly rated psychogeographers (mentioning no names).

Imaginative flights of fancy are spurred on through random encounters, snippets of news and an undoubtedly meticulously researched obsession with historical landmarks on the marshes. When out walking on Hackney Marshes, on the vast open ground, you are cast back in time by the medieval sounds of a murder of crows. Your interest is piqued at the knowledge of the Victorian water system at the site of the Middlesex Filter Beds. You wonder at the bomb rubble beneath your feet (or piled up high into the sky, as the Olympic Delivery Authority left it, fully exposed for weeks at Leyton Marsh). Yet its to Rees’ almighty credit that he is able to transform these fleeting imaginings into full colour motion, inhabiting his scenes with characters earthly enough to relate to, yet unearthly enough to convey the mystical magic of the marshes. For me, this makes the fine illustrations redundant; all this is achieved through the accomplished and genre-bending prose alone.

The spectre of development lurks in the shadows of this book and leaves you perversely rather looking forward to Rees’ prescient projection of flooded future, rather than the reclamation of this land by ugly capital, passing itself off as benign-sounding ‘regeneration.’ That is, unless the rival spirit of the commoners, which flashes across the pages, can illuminate a better shared future for our marshes. After all, the Games may be over but the ‘Endgames’ haven’t happened yet!

Marshland: Dreams and Nightmares on the Edge of London by Gareth E. Rees is available from Influx Press

N.B. This review was written by Caroline Day and does not necessarily reflect the views of every Save Lea Marshes member, some of whom may appreciate the undisputed talents of Ian Sinclair.

Posted in Lea Marshes | Comments Off on Marshland: Dreams and Nightmares on the Edge of London

SLM Photo Competition

Posted on 20 February 2014 by Caroline Day

SLM Photo Comp Poster

Posted in Lea Marshes | Comments Off on SLM Photo Competition

LVRPA Considers Transferring Operations to a Leisure Trust

Posted on 9 February 2014 by Caroline Day

Here is the Future of LVRPA letter they sent out this week, outlining their plans and below is the response by Laurie Elks, of the Lea Valley Federation, to this communication which elucidates our shared concern as to what will happen to our green spaces, presently under the remit of the Authority, in future:

Dear Shaun and Derrick,
 
I have received your e-mail about the Authority’s future intentions.  We were aware that this was contemplated and I can see the financial logic from the Authority’s point of view.   As it happens, in my now distant days as a commercial lawyer I acted for a Trust on a “bulk transfer” of a local authority’s leisure facilities so I understand the contractual ramifications.
 
As you have raised this now I will let you know that it has been agreed within the Lee Valley Federation that I will write a pamphlet, provisionally to be called Lee Valley – Time for a Rethink revisited.  It will revisit the themes of Time for a Rethink (published in 1980 and available on the LVF website) which had some considerable impact on the thinking of the Authority at the time.
 
I will go further and let you know that (although the Park Authority has done and continues to do good work at some sites such as Fishers Green and Walthamstow Marsh) the view we take is that the Authority as a custodian of the Park as a “green lung” is a busted flush.  The regional remit, the Olympic legacy, and the financial pressures mean that the cost of running regional facilities is such that the energy and resource to care for the Park as a green lung is always going to be inadequate and residual.  A demerger of the Authority’s functions with a separate, committed and adequately-resourced body with a “green” remit is the only way to resolve this situation.
 
The reason I am telling you this now is that in principle, your proposal could be a step in precisely this direction.  However, it is impossible to respond to your consultation without a clear understanding of how the residual green arm of the Authority will be organised, staffed and – above all – resourced. 
 
I would expect that your members will also require this information and – to be frank – if they do not require this they will not be doing their job very well!
 
Would you please let me know what further information about this is going to be forthcoming to consultees and to members in advance of the Authority meeting on 27th February.  Since your consultation has gone out less than three weeks before the decision-taking meeting could you let me have an answer by the end of the coming week?
 
Best regards
 
 
Laurie Elks
Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on LVRPA Considers Transferring Operations to a Leisure Trust

Replies to Our Joint Letter Requesting Hackney and Waltham Forest Recruit Biodiversity Officers

Posted on 23 January 2014 by Caroline Day
Dear Ian and Deniz

RE: Biodiversity officers

I am writing to you as signatories to a joint letter dated 17 December 2013 regarding the above matter, which was addressed to both myself and Cllr Chris Robbins, Leader of Waltham Forest Council.
I would like to assure you that Hackney Council takes its responsibilities in relation to biodiversity very seriously, and – as I’m sure you know – the Council published a borough-wide biodiversity action plan in 2012.
Whilst I understand that the biodiversity officer post within the Council’s Leisure & Green Spaces department is currently vacant and under review, during 2013 this service has continued to work towards the targets set out in the action plan, and the Hackney Biodiversity Partnership meets every two months to discuss progress.
Amongst the action plan targets already met are:
– the appointment of a GIS mapper to map the borough’s parks and their habitats
– running a wildflower meadow training course for Hackney’s gardeners
– running a wildlife recording campaign
– commissioning the London Wildlife Trust to deliver biodiversity enhancements to Clissold Park (which has so far generated 459 volunteer hours)
– planting Hackney’s largest wildflower meadow in London Fields
It is also worth emphasising that the biodiversity officer would not be responsible for commenting on any non-parks related planning applications. If this service is required the planning department will continue to seek the advice of independent ecologists – as it does currently for any parks-related or other applications where appropriate.
I hope that this information is helpful, and I am happy for you to forward this to the other signatories to the letter if you have their contact details. I would also encourage residents to visit www.hackney.gov.uk/biodiversity, where you can find links to Hackney’s biodiversity action plan and also to the London-wide action plan, as well as other information relating to Hackney’s approach to biodiversity issues. I hope that you will be reassured that this is an issue that Hackney continues to recognise as of vital importance to the borough and its residents.
Yours sincerely
Jules Pipe
Mayor of Hackney
To: Ian Rathbone (Cllr); Deniz Oguzkanli (Cllr)
CC: leader@walthamforest.gov.uk

Dear Caroline Day,

Thank you for your recent email asking Waltham Forest to appoint a full-time biodiversity officer.

The Council’s Nature Conservation Officer covers biodiversity for the Waltham Forest administrative area.  We take a proactive approach to biodiversity and geological conservation, taking full account of our statutory obligations and their impact within the planning system.  The Nature Conservation Officer is the internal consultee for planning applications within the authority and applications are properly scrutinised with our planners.  Following careful consideration of applications appropriate protection and mitigation measures are put into place where pertinent and wherever possible enhancement measures in respect of biodiversity are included. Therefore biodiversity is given full, proper and appropriate consideration in all decision-making within the borough.

LBWF policies including the LBWF Biodiversity Action Plan, Development Management Policies Local Plan Adoption Version 36 Policy DM35 – Biodiversity and Geodiversity,  give clear guidance with respect to Biodiversity in Waltham Forest along with the core strategy 8 Policy CS5- Enhancing Green Infrastructure and Biodiversity.

We have strong links and good working relationships particularly with Lea Valley Regional Park Authority and City Of London Conservators of Epping Forest, along with Natural England, and also work with (TCV) Trust for Conservation Volunteers & (LWT) London Wildlife Trust &  Lea Valley bats as well as local Friends Groups.

Generally, the Council’s Grounds Maintenance & Arboricultural Contract Monitoring Officers are aware of the importance of biodiversity and where appropriate enhance through species selection for planting schemes in shrub beds, highway verges, also parks and open spaces owned by the authority.  Furthermore schemes designed by the Council’s Strategic Parks & Open Spaces Officer will also enhance and further improve biodiversity on land managed by the Council where appropriate.

I trust this information is helpful but please do not hesitate to contact me again if you need particular clarification on any point.

Best wishes,

Cllr Chris Robbins

Leader of the Council

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Replies to Our Joint Letter Requesting Hackney and Waltham Forest Recruit Biodiversity Officers

All Going According to Plan at the Waterworks?

Posted on 17 January 2014 by Caroline Day

After promising to restore the Water Works Golf Course after its ‘temporary’ use as a campsite for the Olympics the LVRPA reversed this decision in 2013 and decided, without consultation, to continue to use it for camping alongside pony trekking. In fact, the Olympics had simply provided the opportunity to do what officers at the LVRPA had been planning to do for a long time as part of their programme to commercialise the authority’s open space.

002

The Waterworks Campsite, summer 2013

The whole idea of this project, of course, was to make money. However, a report submitted to the LVRPA’s executive on 21st November 2013 reveals a somewhat different outcome. After claiming the ‘successful introduction of a campsite at the Waterworks through the Olympic period’ officers were obliged to note that there had been a ‘shortfall in income’ which they blamed on ‘local issues (which) caused a delay in promotion and introduction of the change in use’. However, as the Lea Marsh website simply noted ‘Clearly LVRPA got its maths hopelessly wrong or completely over estimated likely use rates’. Officers went on to report ‘The projected Waterworks deficit is in line with previous years’ cost’. Despite this they still expect an ‘improvement…in the next financial year’.

In their proposal for creating a campsite for the Olympics officers had claimed ‘The Waterworks site is in close proximity to Olympic Park; and as such has the potential to generate temporary income from 2012 related opportunities’. However, in the Customer Satisfaction report officers reported that ‘All venues achieved or narrowly missed their targets except the Waterworks, where the main area of negative feedback was that customers felt that the proximity to the Olympic Park was further than advertised’! In fact Live Nation came to a similar conclusion in March 2013 when the LVRPA sought the LLDC’s support during the summer’s music events: ‘Looking at the map it is a fair walk away and does not look that straight forward to get to the site as there would need to cross a number of A roads to get here’. The LLDC expressed concern about people getting to the park in a ‘safe manner’ and ‘not trying to run across the A12’ while Live Nation said it ‘would be very surprised if LVRPA got permission to use this for festival goers’ and asked ‘if LVRPA understands the risks of festival camp sites from both a criminal and health & safety aspect’. It wondered ‘who would steward/sign the routes into the site and more importantly who would manage a very drunken crowd back to their tents at the end of the night’.

Officers also had to report that while usage of LVRPA sites as a whole had risen usage at the WaterWorks had fallen by 17,000 ‘because the centre was operating as a golf course in 2012/13 before changing operation to a temporary campsite for the Olympics. In 2013/14 there was no golf operation at the site with a temporary campsite being operated in line with major events taking place on the Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park in Q2’.

Not only had usage, customer satisfaction and income fallen but officers also had to report a rise in complaints at the WaterWorks. Net Promoter Scores across LVRPA venues rose by 14% with the exception of the WaterWorks where they ‘fell from 19% to -7%’! This, they said, was ‘based on feedback from visitors to the events campsite – the majority of whom were passive about recommending to others’. Key to this was the issue that ‘the proximity to the Olympic Park was further than advertised’. The report goes on to state ‘The WaterWorks Centre received more complaints than compliments than for the same period last year. This is due to complaints about the cessation of golf and plans for the temporary campsite and pony trekking’.

Despite these setbacks officers reported: ‘Planning is underway for both activities (camp site and pony trekking) for the 2014/15 season’. You can’t fault them for trying!

*With its its proximity to the nature reserve, SLM believe it would be better to see the Waterworks Centre utilised for green community events like the successful Eastern Curve Garden, or the whole area transformed into London’s first organic golf course as we suggested last year. These alternatives would not fence out, displace and upset the public and are unlikely to involve such an unnecessary waste of public money.*

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment