Save Lea Marshes

Visit Caroline’s blog at: http://carolineallengreenlondon.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/save-leyton-marsh-from-olympic-bullying.html

Her report is also on our press releases page…

Caroline Allen from the Green Party

Caroline Allen, Green Party candidate for North East London, visited Leyton Marsh on Friday 27th April to witness the destruction of Leyton Marsh.

She was joined by other members of the Green Party and local residents from Save Leyton Marsh Group who explained the history of the campaign. Caroline is pictured here in front of the planning permission granted by Waltham Forest which states that the permission went against 15 existing planning policies and was a ‘finely balanced’ decision that acknowledged the harm to the amenity. Just behind her you can see high court enforcement officers who were filming everyone who entered the public space of Leyton Marsh, including Caroline and the other Green Party members. All except one officer had his face covered by a hood or had pulled up his coat over his face!

Caroline was shocked by the nature of the permission granted and even more so by the huge mounds of rubble on the south of the site. She could see for herself the composition of the mounds included brickwork and metal as the plastic covering only covers part of the mounds. She noted down information about the discovery of asbestos and lead in the soil and our serious concern with the health and safety implications of this.

She will be sharing this information with Jenny Jones, the mayoral candidate for the Green Party who had wanted to attend but had been unable to due to prior commitments.

We are glad that our electoral candidates and elected representatives are taking up the case of Leyton Marsh. We look forward to working with people across the political spectrum in making sure that the site is restored to its ‘original condition’ by 15th October as repeatedly promised by the LVRPA and the ODA.

Carolines personal report of her visit and her feelings about the marsh and the basketball courts can be read here: http://carolineallengreenlondon.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/save-leyton-marsh-from-olympic-bullying.html

Below is a statement Simon Moore concerning his Interim ASBO served to him on release from 5 days imprisonment for protesting on Leyton Marsh.

My name is Simon Moore. I was recently served with an Interim Anti Social Behaviour Order (IASBO) on leaving HMP Thamesmead following four days of incarceration. I was imprisoned along with two friends: Dan & Anita. We had engaged in peaceful civil disobedience at Leyton Marshes, where the Olympic Delivery Authority have organised the construction of a basketball training facility on open, communal land without the consent of the local people. The action which began the chain of events (resulting in imprisonment) involved sitting in front of a lorry carrying cement at the entrance to the construction site on Leyton Marshes and refusing to move when asked to do so by a police officer. I have no remorse about my actions. I was doing what I know to be right.

The IASBO which is in effect until a court hearing on May 3rd at Westminster Magistrates Court (when a hearing for a longer term ASBO will take place) prohibits engaging in certain activities. It warns that should I do any of the prohibited activities I may be liable ‘on conviction or indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or a fine, or to both’. It is signed by a Justice of the Peace from Westminster Magistrates Court and has been sought by CO11: the Metropolitan Police’s Public Order Unit.

The prohibitions contained with the IASBO relate primarily to the Olympic and Paralympic Games, although they also include the Diamond Jubilee Celebrations, the State Opening of Parliament on 9th May 2012, the Royal River Pageant and the Trooping of the Colour on 16th June 2012. For the exact wording of the prohibitions, please see below. The prohibitions are worded in such a way which suggests the possibility that its authors believe that the recipient may be intending to disrupt the events mentioned above. This suspicion is most clearly evident in prohibition 4 which reads: ”Taking part in any activity that disrupts the intended or anticipated official activities of the Olympic games or Diamond Jubilee Celebrations”.

I am taking this opportunity to respond publicly to this IASBO.

I have never intended to disrupt any of the ceremonies mentioned above nor would I. This IASBO was given to me following peaceful demonstration and civil disobedience at the Leyton Marshes construction site which happens to be a proposed Olympic training venue. The fact that the destruction of a communal green open space in the heart of a densely populated, deprived urban environment happened to be in the name of the Olympics was not what led me to engage in peaceful civil disobedience there. My activities at Leyton Marshes are not intended to be ‘anti-Olympics’. They are intended to highlight what I see is a gross failure on the part of public bodies to represent the needs of the local people in the areas that are being used to host the games. The decision to build on Leyton Marshes is showing that the current nature of the organisation and delivery of the Olympics in London 2012 is undemocratic and unaccountable on many levels. The needs of the local people in Hackney and Waltham Forest have gone completely overlooked and their rights have been infringed on. They have not been consulted on a matter which is important to many of them nor have they had any say. They currently have no access to an open space which is vital to people’s health and well being. And rightly many are concerned that they may lose this right for good.

I came to Leyton with other like minded people with a common aim to support local people who had decided to do anything peacefully in their power to protect a treasured space. Our activities were soon criminalised by the application of laws which placed the needs of anonymous public bodies and corporations above those of the local people. The Olympics need not be carried out in this way. There is an alternative which would leave a positive legacy for Londoners. Currently this is not being fulfilled. The situation at Leyton Marshes is proof of this.

With respect to the IASBO, it established prohibitions that I regard as unjust and unnecessary. It also infers that I am going to engage in activities which I have no intention of engaging in. Regardless of this fact, in order to prevent these anticipated activities it criminalises activities which are ordinary and usually considered lawful. For example the 1^st prohibition: ”Entering or remaining within 100 yards of any existing or proposed Olympic competition or practice venue or route or participant’s residence within England and Wales”. I am currently participating in a 24 hr/day ongoing demonstration outside Lea Valley Ice Centre on Lea Bridge Rd (in front of Leyton Marsh) with tents and banners etc. Lea Bridge Rd is one of the major Olympic routes (one which the Olympic torch is intended to travel down). I protest there with friends to raise the attention of the local population to the situation at Leyton Marshes (not to disrupt the Olympic Games). Sometimes I may walk around the construction site on the Marshes to see what is happening to it. Under

the terms of the IASBO, both of these activities are illegal.

Prohibition no.3 declares: ”Not to trespass on, or without the permission of the owner to interfere with, any building or land”. I have camped (and will likely do so again soon) on the grass verge next to Lea Bridge Rd next to signs that explain that the Waltham Forest Council (the landowner) do not grant permission for anyone to camp there and demand that we (occupiers) leave. Normally this is a civil matter which would have to go to the High Court for an eviction order/injunction to be granted before we could be removed. Because of the IASBO, I can be arrested simply for standing on the verge. Even if I or anyone else was intending to disrupt the Olympic ceremonies or events (which I am not), I would still regard these prohibitions as unjust. Can it be called just to criminalise lawful activities on the grounds that someone may commit a crime later?

By continuing my participation with the campaign at Leyton Marshes I have been placed with a choice between doing what I know to be right or obeying a law that deems my activities criminal and thereby ending my participation. I choose to do what I know to be right. If this means breaking the law then that is what I will do openly and transparently. If I am arrested and or imprisoned as a result, I know that I have not broken my own sense of what I see as just which is truer to me than any law no matter who has created it. Being in prison doesn’t change that.

I echo the sentiments of many past and present in saying that if the law says that something you are doing is wrong which you regard as right, then break the law. Likewise if the law requires you to do something you regard as wrong, then break the law.

The prohibitions are as follows:

“1. Entering or remaining within 100 yards of any existing or proposed Olympic competition or practice venue or route or participant’s residence within England and Wales.

2. Entering or remaining within 100 yards of any road being used on that day for the passage of the Olympic torch, or on which any Olympic competition or practice venue is taking place – e.g the marathon – within England and Wales;

3. Not to trespass on, or without the permission of the owner to interfere with, any building or land;

4. Taking part in any activity that disrupts the intended or anticipated official activities of the Olympic games or Diamond Jubilee celebrations;

5. Obstructing the movement or passage of any Olympic participant between their residence, practice venue or place of work and venues being used for Olympic competition or cultural purposes and vice versa.

For the purposes of this Order:

‘Olympic’ or ‘Olympics’ shall be construed as referring to both the Olympic and Paralympic Games being held in England and Wales in 2012;

‘Diamond Jubilee celebrations’ shall be construed as referring to the following dates only

– State Opening of Parliament on 9th May 2012,

– The Royal River Pageant and other Jubilee associated events on 2nd – 5th June 2012 inclusive and

– Trooping of the Colour on 16th June 2012.

‘Participant’ shall be construed as including competitors, accredited officials, spectators at or in the vicinity of venues at which Olympic events are taking place or are anticipated to take place and the workforce engaged in work associated with the Olympics, paid or unpaid.”

Reposted from here: http://london.indymedia.org/articles/12126

Legal disclaimer: The above statement belongs to Simon and do not necessarily reflect or represent the views of the Save Leyton Marsh group.

Since there was an agenda item on the Basketball Courts at Leyton Marsh tonight, a number of members of Save Leyton Marsh Group attended the Lea Bridge Community Forum meeting at Lea Bridge library E10. Local resident Richard made it very clear to Cllr Masood Ahmad that an original query from local resident Claire should have been not just acknowledged, but that the wording of the questions put to the Council officers should have been made available to her. The councillor has since done so.

It was a lively meeting with 3 Ward councillors present, and residents who had gone there to discuss the Diamond Jubilee street party plans etc, became quite alarmed at the contributions from Dan, Matt, Richard, Len, Katy et al about the hazardous environmental situation on Leyton Marsh and its non-management.

One resident spoke about the LVRPA proposals to double the size of the ice rink, again this was something unknown by residents and the councillors (but anyway they also struggled to know who was the WF rep on LVRPA)!

We will be inviting the local councillors to meet our campaign group and witness what is taking place on the marsh firsthand. We have had considerable correspondence with Stella Creasy and have invited her to Leyton Marsh. Caroline Allen from the Green Party will be visiting the marsh and talking to residents about their concerns on Friday. Please get in contact with your representatives about this issue!

Some questions:
1) If the rubble is of a toxic nature and therefore necessitates this covering, why has it taken the authorities four weeks to cover it?

2) Why were no plans in place for the safe removal of this rubble?

3) When will these rubble piles be removed from site?

What we know:

1) The ODA have admitted to finding asbestos cement (chrysotile) in the soil. The serious and potentially fatal effects of asbestos are detailed here. The ODA have also admitted that discovery of this substance briefly ‘suspended work on site’.

2) They have also admitted to the Environment Agency that ‘elevated heavy metals’ have been discovered in the ground. One of these is presumably lead, high levels of which were found in 2 of the 5 samples taken before work was undertaken. The effects of lead poisoning can be found here.

3) Furthermore, the ODA have admitted that in the sampling of just two small stockpiles numerous small fragments of asbestos cement sheet were noted.   The stockpiles overall comprised of ‘predominantly granular soils, with fragments of ash, clinker, rusted metal, brick, concrete and other inclusions’.

4) The ODA are planning to ‘re-use’ this ‘retained material’ and ‘cover it with topsoil’ and then seed/ re-turf this soil!

Yesterday a two hour hearing of the civil injunction, lodged by the ODA against peaceful protestors engaged in blocking construction vehicles on Leyton Marsh, took place at the High Courts of Justice.

This was a subsequent hearing of the initial injunction on 4th April granted to the ODA for a two week duration.

Five defendants were summoned before the court; Simon Moore, Anita Olivacce, Connor Murray, Daniel Ashman and Rowena Johnson. Simon, Anita, Connor and Daniel had already appeared before court charged under section 14 of the Public Order Act. Connor pleaded not guilty and will be tried on 1st June. Simon, Anita and Daniel pleaded guilty, were subsequently fined £640 which they were unable and unwilling to pay and hence were incarcerated for 5 days.

Rowena Johnson, a local resident who was unaware of the injunction until her summons, was included as a defendant solely on the evidence provided by the Evening Standard. One of the ODA’s solicitors was recognised by many of the group as he had claimed to be an ES journalist when appearing at the marshes. A complaint has now been made to the Law Society regarding his conduct by one member of the group to whom he made such a claim.

The judge heard first the arguments put by the ODA for their case; this included a description of the obstruction of lorries that occurred on 10th April. None of the defendants challenged the fact they had engaged in obstruction of lorries since their aim was to challenge the construction using peaceful direct action. However, a local resident who appeared as a Macenzie friend on behalf of Daniel Ashman did challenge the ‘partial’ witness accounts of the ODA’s Mark Sorrell whose descriptions of incitement were described as ‘vague’ and ‘unsubstantiated’. The judge pointed out that any criminal incidents should be pursued as criminal matters and did not relate to the defendants and the civil injunction being heard.

In addition to using the Evening Standard article as fact, an undertaking critiqued by Daniel Ashman during his defence, the ODA employed as exhibits screen captures of various social media pages as evidence of ‘incitement’, including an anonymous comment posted on indymedia and the Occupy Twitter account. The judge asked for clarification from the ODA as to whether any such proposed ‘shut down of the site’ had taken place on the day in question. The ODA confirmed there had been none and indeed the defence pointed out that no such idea had appeared on our official website and where it had appeared elsewhere, it had been disclaimed by our Save Leyton Marsh Group.

In an Orwellian twist, the ODA claimed that the injunction was necessary “to ensure the health and safety of their workers” and that there was a ‘serious’ and ‘imminent risk’ to workers on site from the protestors. All the defendants, as well as local resident Katy Andrews, pointed out to the judge that the serious risk was in fact posed by the construction itself.  As part of Simon’s defence, a document of chronology was handed to the judge. This included key sections from the ground investigation report carried out on behalf of Nussli in January which stated that “ground workers should be made aware of the presence of lead and the potential presence of asbestos containing materials in the made ground” and “the relevant levels of personal protective equipment” would be required . In our numerous discussions with workers and dog-handlers, our group has never spoken to one who was aware of the risks or was wearing suitable protective clothing.

In further Orwellian fashion, the ODA went on to claim that presence of protestors constituted “interference to the use and enjoyment of the land”, neglecting of course to mention that their unwanted construction has confiscated 70% of Porter’s Field Meadow for a huge 3 storey 11m high structure. The protestors were described as being a ‘nuisance and obstruction’ to the local people who have supported the camp from the beginning!

Simon and Anita defended their actions on the basis of the context in which they had been undertaken. They both referred to the lack of consultation and due democratic process that had led to the decision to use our beautiful marsh as a site for considerable and ‘destructive’ development. Anita pointed out that thousands of Londoners walked the marsh and that hundreds of local residents directly opposite suffered the loss of Leyton Marsh even more since they did not have their own gardens. Simon told the judge: “It is priceless. It serves an essential human need that no building could.” They both clearly outlined the serious failings of the authorities involved, including failing to engage with locals’ concerns and resorting to expensive legal ‘remedy’ with tax payers’ money. They explained their (we must say passionate and admirable) motivation to support local people in their struggle to protect their open green space for all.

Judge Arnold’s summing up acknowledged the frustrated attempts to engage with the authorities through normal channels and listed the failings of the authorities that were described during the hearing which included concerns about ‘permission’, ‘undemocratic process’, ‘various environmental considerations’, ‘environmental matters of public concern’, ‘development of MOL’ and a number of other ‘legitimate’ matters of concern. Hopefully this list of valid concerns will appear in the decision when it’s published.

The judge also acknowledged that we felt “handicapped by a lack of resources and the financial ability to obtain legal representation” since our claim for legal aid was rejected as not constituting a ‘priority’. However, most of his summing up was reading from a pre-written document and he found the ODA’s property rights under article 1 of the First Protocol meant that the protestors human rights should be ‘waived’. Not all that surprising for a judge who presides over Intellectual Property cases!