Dear friend of Leyton Marsh
The ODA have submitted their
reinstatement plan to the London Borough
of Waltham Forest. Initially the discharge of these conditions was
going to be dealt with under delegated powers, but we have managed to
secure agreement that the planning committee will discuss Condition 1 in
public, probably on 12 September.
This is good news, but the fight is far
from over. We still have concerns about the reinstatement plan, which
are detailed below, and you may have your own. I
therefore urge you to write to LBWF to express your concerns. Please
feel free to use some or all of the points below.
The key thing is that we get as many letters and
emails of objection to LBWF before the planning officers write the
report which will be discussed by the planning committee. A large number of submissions will make a difference when the planning committee are making their decisions. I haven’t been able to wheedle a deadline out of LBWF,
but I think all objections should be submitted as soon as possible and
by 31 August 2012 at the absolute latest to be on the safe side.
Feel free to adapt and expand upon the following points prepared by Save Leyton Marsh group:
Leyton Marsh Temporary
Basketball Training Venue (Ref: 2011/1560): Discharge of Conditions 1, 11, 13
and 14.
•
If the London Borough of Waltham Forest are to
properly scrutinize the discharge of conditions relating to planning
application 2011/1560 then the reinstatement plan should cover all aspects of
the reinstatement. At present:
1.
The reinstatement plan does not cover
discharge of Condition 14.
2.
The reinstatement plan does not acknowledge
that the work cannot be completed by the repeatedly
promised deadline of 15th October without working extended hours, yet the ODA
say they have submitted an application to extend their working hours.
3.
Only Discharge of Condition 1
is being discussed at the planning committee meeting.
Given
that much of the anger over the Games Time Training Venue (GTTV) on Leyton
Marsh is about the way in which the full story was never presented and properly
discussed when the initial planning decision was made, it is critical that LBWF
insist that they are presented with a full and final statement and that the
discharge of all conditions is discussed at the planning committee meeting.
LBWF
should also censure the ODA for beginning work before the reinstatement plan
has been approved. If work had to begin on the turf in June then the proposals
for discharging all conditions should have been submitted to the council prior
to this.
•
It is essential that the ODA and their
contractors have a robust plan in place and that they are open and honest with
LBWF and local people about how long it will take to execute this plan. This
does not appear to be the case at the moment. There are inconsistencies in the timelines presented within the plans:
1.
The
timeline for Option 3 in Appendix B bears no relationship to the information in
section 5.3.10.
2.
The reinstatement plan states the land will be
handed back on 15 October. Yet, in 21.11 of the method statement it says that
the start date for the removal of the perimeter fence is 16 October and the
task will take two days.
3.
The
detailed plan in Appendix A of the method statement isn’t readable.
•
The documents consistently state that the
topsoil is safe to reuse. However, it also states that one piece of asbestos
was found. As I understand it eleven samples were taken from the topsoil and
this one piece of asbestos was found within one of these eleven samples. The
law of probability suggests that if one piece of asbestos was found in eleven
small samples then the likelihood of the topsoil containing a lot more asbestos
is very high. All the topsoil must be handpicked to ensure that there is no
more asbestos.
•
It is not clear from the documents where
liability lies if the reinstatement fails. Who is responsible for ensuring the
sub-base is adequately laid and does not shift or sink? Who is responsible for
the imported subsoil? Who is responsible for ensuring the turf does not fail? It
is vital that long-term liabilities are established before the conditions are
discharged and the ODA’s contractors begin work.
•
Why do the documents discuss digging up the
Type 1 fill laid during the building of the GTTV and replacing it with Type 6F2
fill which is very similar? Why not limit the work and retain the Type 1 fill
already in place?
•
The reinstatement plan ignores
the logistics of managing stockpiles of incoming soil, waste arising and
vehicle deliveries. It needs to be explained how this is to be managed without
impacting either on areas already reinstated or encroaching on areas outside
the licensed land causing further damage.
•
The documents mention a geotextile separator
and state that this will help ‘should further excavation take place’. Leyton
Marsh is Metropolitan Open Land. It is protected from development. No further
excavation should ever take place and there is, consequently, no need for this
geotextile separator to be laid. If it is retained, it will lead local people
to conclude that the promise made by LBWF and the Lea Valley Regional Park
Authority, that the building of the GTTV was a one-off event carried out under
extraordinary circumstances, was false and the development is in fact part of a
much larger plan to erode the protection afforded to Metropolitan Open Land. We
therefore ask that the officer’s report and the planning committee to publicly
reiterate LBWF’s commitment to ensuring the long-term sustainable future of
Leyton Marsh as a green open space.
.JPG)
.jpg)
.JPG)
.JPG)
