Save Lea Marshes

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:

RE: Biodiversity officers

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.

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 21^st 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.*

In the current edition of Hackney Citizen, Cllr Jonathan McShane has claimed that there are a number of ‘practical barriers’ to constructing the new sports pavilion on the footprint of the old changing rooms on North Marsh. We will elucidate here why each of these stated ‘barriers’ are in fact nothing of the sort. They are an attempt to mislead the public about a perfectly good construction plan that the Council described as being in the ‘optimal’ location and which already received planning consent from the Planning Inspectorate.

The proposed NEW footprint of the pavilion bulding: the old changing rooms site will become a large car park

Save Lea Marshes wish the marshes to be protected for everyone’s enjoyment. The marshes are extremely important for informal  recreational use and sport. By re-building the pavilion on the original footprint as approved in 2009, not only will green space be protected, but the sports clubs who have been left scandalously without appropriate facilities for too long will have the best possible facilities for their needs and with minimal risk and delay. However the Council have claimed that they are unable to adhere to this superior plan for reasons that they imply were previously unidentified barriers. This is not the case. What is new since they applied for consent for their old proposals is the Council’s post-Olympic 2012 events policy that allows 3 major events on Hackney Marshes each year (unaltered despite the abandonment of an application for PINS consent for events as a result of the public’s overwhelming opposition to their consultation).

It is clear from the Council response to our support for the 2008 plan, which does not involve building on the presently green space of the marsh, that their present misconceived proposals are intended to primarily support future festivals, rather than sport. The Council have refused to refute our claim that the car park will be constructed for this purpose and have instead issued a series of misleading and false statements to justify their plans. They have used arguments similar to those that they used to recommend approval for the 2008 plan and twisted them upside down to support their new plans.

Practical barriers: nothing of the sort!

Firstly, the Council claim that the new proposal does not place the building in a flood risk zone unlike the previous plans we support. However, the environment agency website clearly shows that all of the existing and proposed new sites is in a flood zone. The previous application was deemed acceptable because ‘In accordance with PPS 25, the facilities are water compatible and located in the most appropriate location, in Flood Zone 1. As such, the development itself will not be at risk from flooding, and will also not place additional pressure on the existing flood situation or on the flood risk to adjoining areas.’

Secondly,  since the proposed new site covers all of the area of the existing site and more besides, it is geometrically impossible for the proposed new site to be further away from the SINC than the existing site is.

The Council need to produce evidence that the funders do not want a two-storey building as ECB guidlelines do not discourage two-storey buildings and it is very common to find two-storey cricket pavilions across the country. Moreover there is no reason for the building to require a two-storey construction, unless it is to support an extended car park for large vehicles such as coaches. The present plans in fact fail to meet ECB guidelines as there is no view of the pitch from any of the changing rooms, whereas in the previous plans the changing rooms were located at the end of the building, nearest the pitch.

The previously approved plans did not reference any issue with the water main which the Council are now claiming is a reason for rejecting these same plans. In any case, the building in its original location is more than 5m from the water main.

Whilst claiming that the community and sports clubs will all support their new plans, the Council will be providing 4 fewer changing rooms than originally planned. It will also cause the sports clubs further delay by submitting brand new and contentious plans for building on green space that may be rejected by the planning inspectorate with the potential for unknown issues related to the ground conditions and potential contamination, such as bomb rubble and unexploded ordnance that were so hazardous at the Leyton Marsh construction site.

We do not object to the visual impact of a building on the orginal footprint, which after all is screened by tall poplar trees (at least one of which will be felled under the new plans) and was described as the ‘optimum’ location by the Council themselves! We ask the Council to look again at what they themselves said regarding the 2008 plans we support: ‘The redevelopment of the changing rooms with the majority on their current footprint is considered to be the optimum location to ensure that they do not impact on the open nature of the Marshes. This is an important consideration especially because the land is designated as Metropolitan Open Land (MOL) and part of the Lee Valley Regional Park.‘

The Council make no reference to the site being common and Metropolitan Open Land in their present proposals, which is extremely revealing. Their silence on the matter of the car park being constructed and utillised for future festivals is deafening. Their original proposals were better for the sports clubs, better for the marshes, better for everyone!

Our new photo competition is up and running on our new website

We will be maintaining this website as a document archive but all new material will now be found at our new website which reflects our current name and has a number of new features: www.saveleamarshes.org.uk

The following letter has been sent to Waltham Forest and Hackney Councils and is signed by a number of environmental organisations and campaigners from both boroughs:

Dear Cllr Robbins and Mayor Pipe,

We are writing to urge both Waltham Forest Council and Hackney Council to appoint
suitably qualified, permanent, full-time biodiversity officers as a priority.

We need biodiversity officers in both boroughs to forge relationships within and
beyond each council to ensure that biodiversity is given full, proper and appropriate
consideration in all decision making and, specifically, that the biodiversity aspects of
planning applications are scrutinised.

Biodiversity is not a luxury, affordable only during the good times, but fundamental to the achievement of all policy objectives. Our environment is our community.

We welcome your response.

Yours sincerely
Claire Weiss
Jason Broadbent
Robin Grey
Joe Ward
David Rees
Oliver Williams
Caroline Day
Vicky Sholund
Peter Mudge
Celia Coram
Paul Charman
Katy Andrews
Julian Cheyne
Joan Yeadon
Melissa Ronaldson, Herbalist
Councillor Ian Rathbone, Leabridge Ward, Hackney
Councillor Deniz Oguzkanli, Leabridge Ward, Hackney
Kev Dovey, Hackney Marshes User Group Committee Member
Fi Stephens, Hackney Marshes User Group Committee Member
Anna Evely, project MAYA and SEEDBALL
Damian Rafferty, Chair, Mabley Green Users Group

Abigail Woodman: The Association of Local Government Ecologists produced a
report in November 2013 called ‘Ecological Capacity and Competence in English
Planning Authorities: What is needed to deliver statutory obligations for biodiversity?’.
It states, ‘The results show that many local planning authorities do not currently have
either the capacity and/or the competence to undertake the effective, and in some
cases necessarily lawful, assessment of planning applications where biodiversity is a
material consideration.’ I would have thought that being two of only three London
boroughs without a biodiversity officer places Hackney and Waltham Forest at the
very bottom of any league table of competence, and would call for this to be rectified
immediately.

Anna O’Brien: The number of local people who understand the importance of
biodiversity is growing and local biodiversity activists will have a lot more impact if
they are supported by a strategic post in their local council. And yes, I’m asking for
this in full knowledge of the funding cuts to local councils.

Laurie Elks: Hackney’s emerging Local Development Framework contains policies for
biodiversity but without a suitably qualified officer there will be no means to give
effect to these policies. Appointing a biodiversity officer must, therefore, be a matter
of priority.
Save Lea Marshes
Pesticide Action Network UK
Millfields User Group