Leyton Marsh Games Time Temporary Basketball Training Venue Planning application number: 2011/1560
In response to Waltham Forest's planning notice dated 12 December for the Leyton Marsh Olympic Games Basketball Training Venue, we have submitted the following Objection to WF setting out the reasons why Leyton marsh should not be a development soft option. Please do feel free to draw on this if you also want to register an objection. The deadline appears to be 2 January 2012. The address to email your comments to Terunesh[dot]McKoy[at]walthamforest[dot]gov[dot]uk or send your comments to is: waltham forest plan comments.
In response to Waltham Forest's planning notice dated 12 December for the Leyton Marsh Olympic Games Basketball Training Venue, we have submitted the following Objection to WF setting out the reasons why Leyton marsh should not be a development soft option. Please do feel free to draw on this if you also want to register an objection. The deadline appears to be 2 January 2012. The address to email your comments to Terunesh[dot]McKoy[at]walthamforest[dot]gov[dot]uk or send your comments to is: waltham forest plan comments.
Policy
1.
The application should be refused
on the basis of adopted planning policies. The proposals conflict with a range
of policies including:
·
protection of Metropolitan Open
Land (MOL);
·
the London Plan;
·
the emerging Local Development
Framework (and the saved UDP policies);
·
the LVRPA plan.
2.
The proposals do not accord with
the Olympic Fringe Framework Plan for Leyton/Lea Bridge and do not follow
guidance contained in the Draft Upper Lea Valley Framework. The proposals
should be refused on this basis unless exceptional circumstances can be proven,
which the application does not provide.
The good planning of the area
3.
Poor planning has brought the Olympic
Delivery Authority (ODA) to this point where open space with the highest
planning protection is considered to be available for development without
proper examination of the alternatives. The ODA holds powers to acquire land;
sufficient funds to acquire land for Olympic purposes; and possesses planning powers
that apply to that land. The definition of the Olympic Park and its planning
has failed to address the need for specialist training courts, despite the fact
that this requirement was known. A failure to properly plan for this
contingency does not in itself provide a justification for the development of
Metropolitan Open Land, whether temporarily or permanently.
Metropolitan Open Land
4.
The applicants rely on the claim
that the MOL protection should be set-aside on the basis that the development
is in the national interest; that it is a temporary use; and the site will be
entirely restored to its former condition with no long-term harm/diminution.
5.
The applicant has not fulfilled
the requirements of the test of national interest. The claim of national
interest can only stand where the need arises from the proper planning of the
Olympic facilities, which it does not, and where other less harmful site
options have been considered first; a sequential approach. The application
demonstrates that no such rigorous process has been undertaken, only a bidding
process by public bodies. No explanation why the facilities cannot be
incorporated into the main Olympic Park has been given, or why the need for
these courts was addressed only at this late stage. Extensive legacy and Olympic
Fringe planning has been undertaken and at no point was this proposal raised.
6.
The applicant claims that the
need for the development of the Marsh arises from the need for two courts with
wider run-off areas within 30 minutes drive of the Olympic Park after the
failure to identify alternative courts through a limited bidding process
amongst public bodies such as local schools. No private sites were considered.
Re-organising or extending the Olympic Park was not considered (even though the
original number of park buildings and facilities have been reduced). The run
–off areas are, it appears, an international Olympic requirement, as the
applicant states, but the 30 minute drive time appears to be a discretional
criteria selected by the ODA.
Legacy
7.
Mitigation of the impacts of the
development does not amount to a legacy or a significant material enhancement
of the Marsh. The proposals attempt to mitigate, but do not enhance, and will
not provide a local legacy to outweigh the impacts, some of which will be
permanent. The sum of c.£65,000 amounts to a fee for a license/lease from the
LVRPA which is not controlled through the application. There are no safeguards to ensure that
this sum will amount to specific additional investment in the Marsh, or when enhancement
work will be carried out.
8.
The applicant refers to the wider
‘legacy’ arising from the Olympics in support of the application, but they
cannot claim that this legacy will be lost if this application fails or if the
practice courts were to be built on an alternative site more than 30 minutes
drive from the Olympic Park.
9.
The applicants state that the
courts are either to be rented (and returned?) or moved to venues to be decided
by Sport England and Govt. Olympic Executive. There is no assurance that they
will be offered to local venues to serve the community affected by the
development.
A temporary use unprecedented in its impacts
10. There seems to be no exception in planning policy that will allow
non-compliant uses on MOL on the basis that the development is temporary.
11. The policy tests have not been met and the application
misrepresents the tests, which do not allow exceptions on the basis that the
development is temporary. It is a dangerous precedent to permit development of
MOL on the basis that the harm is only temporary. This opens the door to a
series of temporary developments on the Marshes.
12. The application refers to a history of temporary uses and
structure on the marsh setting a precedent for development however; this
application is unprecedented in terms of the scale, disturbance of the Marsh
and longevity. It should be remembered that one of the temporary uses was for a
church tent to facilitate the Olympic park development. Other temporary uses,
such as park open days, are non-destructive of the Marsh area and in a
completely different category, not even needing planning permission. This is
yet another local precedent coming after the temporary church building, and the
development of temporary allotments on Marsh Lane fields and the loss of that
open space.
13. The applicants cannot assert that all impacts will be temporary
unless the evidence base for these assertions is submitted. The potential harm
arising from the development, such as to wildlife, archaeology etc, has not
been assessed and no effective controls are therefore available to ensure that
all of the impacts of the development will be temporary and the site entirely
restored to its original state.
The role of the LVRPA
14. The case for the application includes, as a criteria for site
selection, the strength of the LVRPA /ODA relationship. LVRPA support for the
proposals cannot be taken at face value because they are the landowner and are
a party to the development, with a private financial arrangement agreed in
advance with ODA. LVRPA support and involvement does not provide sufficient
test of the public interest and openness and is not equal to a rigorous
independent assessment of the development options, which has not been
undertaken or submitted.
Design, extent and scale of the proposals
15. Contrary to assertions made in the application that the approach
was to minimise land take, the land-take has not been minimised. Less harmful,
alternative site configurations have not been considered in the Design and
Access Statement which states that this is an ‘ideal’ site for development; but
in terms of adopted policy it most definitely is not. There is clearly
considerable scope to reduce the extent of the proposals, as the pre
application consultation plan demonstrates, with paved areas reduced.
16. The DAS does not explain options for minimising impacts/
footprint, roads, car parks, height etc. It sets out the general aims for the Olympic
park, such as urbanisation and reclamation, which are inappropriate for this
site and which conflict with the open space and natural, pastoral quality of
the Marsh for which the overriding aim should be for it to remain unaltered or
returned to a more natural state. The DAS does not examine why this temporary use
cannot be placed in the Olympic Park.
Extensive road network to be built on the marsh
17. The proposed roads are the some of the most destructive elements
of the development and will disturb the natural drainage and attenuation and
cut through established wildlife habitats and corridors at the margins of the mown
area of the Marsh. No justification is given for the extensive arrangement of
access road loop, car parking, coach parking, and vehicle set down areas. No
consideration of alternatives has been given, such as locating some parking
(after dropping off) on the Ice rink car park or a single in-out road, which
seems to better accord with the claim that vehicle movements will be low and
insignificant. The Transport Assessment does not provide a justification for
this extensive on site road network. Traffic impacts have not been minimised,
as claimed, in order to minimise impacts on the Marsh and loss of amenity.
18. The proposed works to the sandy path and later reinstatement are
not clearly defined. A paved road through the Marsh sets an unwelcome
precedent, upsetting the delicate balance which currently allows limited
vehicular access whilst guaranteeing a pedestrian friendly environment and a
surface which deters cyclists from speeding. The grit surface of the path is an
important quality of the Marsh, which will be harmed if the surface is paved
and that paving allowed to remain.
A flawed site selection process will create a dangerous precedent
19. A dangerous precedent will be set if this application is allowed
because a sequential approach to site selection has not been adopted.
20. The key question is: Which are the appropriate policies tests
which must be met in order to permit anyone to build on the Marsh and are they
demonstrably met in these circumstances? The preferable sequence of sites to be
considered would be as follows:
1.
Olympic park;
2.
Other vacant Brownfield land (both
public and private);
3.
Playing fields and sports grounds;
4.
Designated open space;
5.
Metropolitan Open Land.
21. Alternative sites have not been properly assessed whilst the Marsh
is clearly perceived as a less valuable open space and a ‘soft’ option;
devalued by its former history as playing fields and before that as a blitz
rubble dump. It is clear from the application that the Marsh land was
considered as a preferred option from the beginning and this flies in the face
of a proper policy-led approach.
22. If this application is allowed without a proper sequential test
then the ability of the LPA’s and the LVRPA to resist inappropriate development
and protect open space will be severely diminished. The potential ‘Olympic legacy’ for the area will be a
weakening of open space protection overall with a dangerous precedent set.
Flawed logic on the impact of open space should be challenged
23. The application adopts a dissembling approach to measuring the impact
of the proposals. By quoting the gross area of open space, including the
adjoining Walthamstow Marsh and other open areas, the applicant potentially misrepresents
the actual impact on Leyton Marsh, which is proportionally much greater. The
applicant also attempts to describe the scale of the proposals in the context
of the overall Park area, which is a very dangerous approach to allow to go
unchallenged.
24. Metropolitan Open Land is designated and protected precisely
because it is a scarce resource in London and because each and every acre is valuable.
Planning Authorities in London should never allow a logic to take hold where an
amount of Metropolitan Open Land can be considered ripe for development,
whether temporarily or permanently, on the basis that the remaining amount of
Metropolitan Open remains large. This is a recipe for gradual but cumulative
erosion. Such an approach should not be promoted by public bodies such as the
ODA and LVRPA and should be resisted by Local Planning Authorities.
The quality and amenity of the Marsh will be diminished
25. The value and amenity of the Marsh as open space is misrepresented
by the applicants and given insufficient weight.
26. Whilst the application notes that paved paths around the Marsh
will not be severed, many other qualities and amenities of the Marsh are
disregarded.
27. The application refers only to paved paths around the perimeter of
the Marsh when there are in fact three diagonal, non-paved, paths which
traverse it. These paths will be severed by the proposals and diminish the
overall quality of the walks through the Marshes of which the non paved paths
across Leyton Marsh form an important segment.
28. The application does not note, and therefore does not weigh in the
balance, the value of the central area of the Marsh, which on warm days is
treated like a ‘big rug’ for sitting out, picnics etc. This amenity will be
lost for the duration. The Marsh is the nearest wide-open green space to many
residents in the area, particular in Low Leyton to the north east and along Lea
Bridge Road.
29. The application does not give proper weight to the loss of
openness resulting from the placement of a extensive range of large footprint
and tall buildings in the centre of the Marsh. This will remove the sense of
openness in all parts of the Marsh and in views across the Marsh from
Walthamstow Marsh and from residents across the Lea Navigation.
Development impacts
30. The possible impacts of the development have not been properly
assessed and it is therefore impossible to judge whether or not the application
should be approved and, if so, what safeguards may need to be put in place. The
following should be noted:
Visual impact
The application does not include
any analysis of key views or 3d representations of the proposals. The visual impact
of the proposals, as noted above, will be considerable with a loss of openness
that will affect all of the marsh, the waterfront, the adjoining marshes and
open areas and views from footpaths in the area. The location of the facility
in the middle of the Marsh will result in the total loss of the open character
of the Marsh for the period it is in place.
Archaeology
The site sits within an
archaeological constraint area. The applicants only assert that no
investigation is needed. Archaeological impacts have not been properly assessed
and no safeguards have been put in place for construction. The only assessment
(by GLAAS) relates to scraping site and is strongly reliant on the received
assumption of a blitz rubble site. The GLAA reported comments relate only to
the potential impact of scraping off the topsoil but do not address footings, drainage/attenuation
works or access road works.
Noise
Noise impact has not been
properly assessed and no effective controls over construction or operation have
been offered. The applicants claim that there are no significant sources of
background noise in the area. This is incorrect. Plant from the ice rink causes
significant noise pollution with a loud whining sound late into the night.
Significant noise nuisance also arises from the Argall Road industrial estate
and the Lea Bridge Road. Together with the proposals these sources may generate
a significant cumulative noise nuisance to nearby homes, which are within 20m
of the application boundary.
Construction
Construction is not properly controlled with
a limited construction/ disassembly statement given in the planning statement.
Nature
conservation
The Marsh includes a Principle
Site of Nature Conservation Importance and adjoins a SSSI. No habitat/nature
assessment has been undertaken but broad assertions are offered nevertheless.
As noted above, the position of LVRPA is
conflicted in relation to the proposals and the planning authority should not
rely on LVRPA support as evidence that there are no significant impacts upon
the natural environment. The proposed road traverses and encroaches upon
marginal planting areas in which plants and invertebrates impacts are unclear. This
may impacts upon foraging bats and disturbance or loss of wildlife migration
corridors, for instance. The construction, operational and deconstruction
impacts may be considerable and will stretch over three seasons. The lack of a
nature/habitat assessment sets a very bad precedent.
Sustainable development
31.The sustainability appraisal submitted with the application fails
to demonstrate that the proposals are sustainable. The temporary development of
protected open space for purposes not fully justified and where alternative,
more sustainable sites, have not been considered first, is a inherently
unsustainable approach.
32. The proposals do not represent a material step towards a long-term
sustainable future for the Marsh involving enhancement and a return to a more
natural state of a water meadow/marsh and potential active floodplain.
33. The proposals do not meet tests of economic sustainability: They are high cost for such a short term
benefit, incur the high cost of reinstating the Marsh to its former condition
and offer only vague plans for the costly relocation of the facilities
afterwards. The temporary nature of the proposal is presented as one of merit
in relation to open space protection policy but is unsustainable essentially
because it is temporary, with the facilities built once, deconstructed, site
rehabilitated and then rebuilt again elsewhere.
34. The application does not meet the test of sustainable development
and should therefore be refused.
Longer term strategy for the Marsh
35. The application should be refused because it does not accord, with
and militates against, the longer-term strategy set out in planning policy. The
proposals are a diversion from and a postponement of this longer-term strategy of
enhancement with moves towards a more natural floodplain/water meadow
landscape, remedying the harm of the former uses as a dump, a blitz rubble
site, and later a recreation ground. It is regrettable that this history of
damage to the natural Marsh is being used here to present it as a less valuable
environmental asset and therefore suitable for temporary development.
36. The currently diminished quality of local open spaces has also
been used to justify allotment development (by the ODA) at Marsh Lane. This is
the continuation of a long history of treating open spaces as vacant and
available for development, rather than as valuable social and natural
amenities, deserving protection and enhancement.
Consultation
37. Consultation on the application has been limited and curtailed.
The proposed site area appears to have grown considerably since the pre-
application consultation. This, along with the shortened consultation period
(over the Christmas period), has potentially limited the chance for the
community affected to develop a full understanding of the proposals and a fair
opportunity to comment.
Summary
38. The application should be refused because:
· The ODA’s claim that this
particular application is in the national interest and that the delivery of the
entire games will be materially harmed if the application is refused is fatally
undermined by their failure to properly plan for this contingency until now and
to marshal their extensive planning and land purchase powers and their
resources in order to meet this long known Olympic requirement for specialist
practice courts in good time; not as a ‘stick it anywhere’ afterthought.
· Temporary development is nevertheless
development in the meaning of the planning acts and this development therefore sets
a dangerous precedent and potential weakening of open space protection.
· The proposals do not meet the
tests of sustainable development.
· The application does not include
a proper sequential assessment of alternative sites considered prior to
proposing to build on the Marsh. The application reveals that the Marsh was
considered to be available for development from the outset.
· The loss of openness, the
established use of the centre of the space as a sitting out/picnic area and the
severance of non paved footpaths across the meadow have not been recognised or
taken into account in the application.
· A nature/habitat assessment has
not been submitted to support the protection and enhancement of the designated
natural environment.
· Insufficient regard has been paid
to noise impact including the cumulative impacts arising from high noise levels
generate by the ice rink’s plant and the Argall Road industrial estate, which
are significant.
· The Marsh is set within an
archaeological constraint area but no archaeological assessment or proposals to
monitor construction or allow potential investigation have been submitted.
· The impacts of the development
have not been minimised, contrary to the assertions made in the application;
the proposals are excessive with unnecessarily extensive roads and parking
areas. No justification is given for such an extensive temporary road network.
39. If the Authority is minded to approve the application it should
take account of the following:
· The committee should recognise
that a compelling case for development on the Marsh has not been made and this
potentially dangerous precedent needs to be limited by a full explanation of
the extenuating circumstances of the decision by the committee (but not set out
by the applicants), along with appropriate safeguards, mitigation and
compensation; including a substantial contribution towards the long term plans
for the Marsh already set out in published planning policies and guidance.
· The overall footprint should be
reduced. Hard surface areas should be considerably reduced with the loop road
removed and parking spaces reduced, possibly utilising the extensive overflow
ice rink parking area for lay-over parking.
· All plant should be low noise
with silent running generators.
· The planning contribution should
be increased, ring fenced to apply only to the Marsh, and possibly placed in a
community trust. The Olympic ‘legacy’ for this proposed development should be
measured locally and should relate to the local planning impacts; the loss of
amenity, temporary and long term harm and the postponement of plans to enhance
the Marsh. This should be in addition to any land transaction in relation to
the £65,000 temporary lease/license from the LVRPA. The amount of the
contribution should reflect the lack of a full justification for the proposals
provided by the applicants.
· The first preference for the
relocation of the buildings should be within 10 min drive time of the Marsh,
and should include relocation and site preparation costs.
· The committee should consider
asking the applicants/owners to enter into a binding covenant excluding all
non-MOL compatible development in the future in order to limit the potential
precedent.
· Notwithstanding the claims made
by the applicants, a legal agreement should require removal, reinstatement and the completion of the enhancements within
one year of the decision to approve.
· The sandy path should be
reinstated to its original dimensions and the grit surface re-laid in order to
prevent the development of a road with an urban character and faster running
surface.
We have requested
that the application is reported to a full meeting of the Council’s Planning
Committee and that we are notified of the date and time of
this meeting, when it is set.
