Objection to the internal site plansDavid Bowden24 February 2011 |
This page is part of the campaign to
Save the Epping Forest Act.
I am writing to object to this planning application submitted for a “Muster and Briefing Station” on Wanstead Flats. I am a Chartered Building Surveyor and have lived close to Epping Forest for most of my life, in Chingford as a child and in Leytonstone for the last thirty or so years.
In Chingford my earliest memories are of playing with my brother and sisters in Epping Forest, fishing for sticklebacks with jam jars in the River Ching, playing at Warren Pond and walking up Pole Hill. More recently the ponds at Whipps Cross was the first place I was taken to after a long stay in hospital and some months later the pond at Wanstead Flats was the first place I managed to go to on my own.
It is intended, contrary to everything I have ever known about the Forest and its special status as a forest given to the public by Queen Victoria for recreation, to construct on and to fence off a significant part of the south side of Wanstead Flats squeezed between a Site of Special Scientific Interest and a children’s play area and a pond much frequented by birds. This is supposedly to enable the Metropolitan Police Authority to better police the Olympic Games, an international event which by far the majority of the local population will have no opportunity of attending.
This is just wrong, and wrong on so many levels.
As I hope you will see from my comments below and those of others who have commented in far greater detail, particularly [the local solicitor], the application can be pulled apart from so many different approaches, but the real reason the proposal is so inappropriate is simply because it just is so inappropriate.
I do not believe that this should even be a matter for consideration under planning law as, under the Forest’s protected status, development cannot be permitted to take place in any event.
Wanstead Flats is a valuable resource for the public. It cannot and must not be built upon.
It is part of Epping Forest which was gathered together by the Corporation of the City of London in order to preserve it for the public, was given by Queen Victoria to her people for use for recreation, and the Corporation was given the statutory duty to forever protect it. Whilst technically it may be the owner of the land, in reality it is more a trustee.
The Corporation has a duty, both moral, and legal, to protect it and if it fails in that duty, there is no reason to approve the application.
The Council as planning authority accepts it has a duty itself to protect the Flats, as is shown in, amongst other places, its Borough Wide Policies, which the proposal contravenes.
The fact that an Act of Parliament needs changing to enable the proposed development shows how special a place this is.
I will not go into any detail here as to how I do not consider the legislation can be changed, at least not in the manner proposed, but would suggest that even if the Council considers itself able to approve the application, that approval should not be given until after the applicant has been able to show that the legislation has been suitably amended.
The proposal is for the temporary use of an area of land not owned by the applicant, the Metropolitan Police Authority, contrary to the Epping Forest Act and the use for which the land was saved from development over the centuries.
The application ignores the existence of common rights which would be detrimentally affected if it were allowed to proceed.
There is very little detail as to what the applicant proposes to construct, or how he intends to use it when constructed and this would prevent the application from being properly considered. The use is described as sui generis. Much of the proposal is left vague, I suggest, to allow carte blanche once the application has been approved.
The traffic analysis relies on a predicted reduction in traffic to match the increase from the proposal, yet the predicted decrease is not justified. It also ignores the closest accident black spots.
Justification appears to rely on the applicant’s own perceived need, in part resulting from insufficient prior planning of another site.
I doubt the fencing will stand up to wind pressure as designed and so greater construction works will be necessary.
Biodiesel and other hazardous materials to be stored on site are not specified in any detail although biodiesel is worryingly described as safe.
Noise is described as exceeding guidelines, yet no comparison is made with the existing.
Even with if consent were to be given, the rights of commoners and others would not be extinguished thereby making the proposed use potentially dangerous.
I request that the Council refuses this application.
In brief I make the following comments:
In more detail, the application form at (6) states that there will be no diversion or extinguishment of rights of way, yet makes no mention of the commoners’ rights over the land, nor those of the public to whom Queen Victoria gave the forest. The commoners have the right to graze etc, and the public has a right to freely wander over the entire site yet it is proposed to erect fencing to obstruct that right.
At (9) there is no mention of the buildings to be erected as part of the application. They are described in general terms elsewhere but not in detail. (I believe further details have been since added but I am abroad at present and am not able to check)
At (14) the site is described as being vacant. This is not a true description and the use would continue but for the proposal. The point of open space is that it should be vacant. Being vacant is its use, and a very important one. It is even its purpose.
At (23) the applicant admits to intending to store or use 0.5 tonnes of liquid petroleum gas. Elsewhere he refers to storage of biodiesel which he claims degrades naturally if spilt, which it may do but to the detriment of surrounding land and watercourses, as well as flora and fauna.
At (24) he certifies that he has given notice to the Corporation of the City of London as owner of the land. He appears to have neither notified the commoners who have rights over the land, nor the public.
At (25) he declares that none of the land is, or is part of an agricultural holding, yet it is by virtue of the common grazing and other rights held over it.
In an email forming part of the Additional Information provided with the application, the applicant claims that the buildings constitute permitted development by virtue of being ancillary to other operations being carried out on that or adjoining land. If he is referring to the Olympic Park itself, it is not adjoining, and if he is referring to anything else it surely requires planning permission in its own right?
The Design and Access Statement:
At (3.17) reference is made to another entrance, one not referred to in the application form, which is to be used in the event of an incident occurring that prevents access from Centre Road. This would be extremely tempting to anyone leaving the site and going towards the Olympics, the site of which is visible to the west along Lake House Road, as opposed to the stated access via the generally blocked roads to the Green Man roundabout and down the A12. It is also perhaps noteworthy that significant work is being carried out along Cann Hall Road and Crownfield Road (which link Lake House Road and the Olympics site in pretty much a straight line). This work includes the removal of chicanes and other traffic calming measures that hinder use of the route.
It is difficult to believe that this is no he truly intended route.
At (3.26) reference is made to generators on site which will start and stop automatically as electricity is needed. It is claimed that this will reduce noise emissions, yet it is the starting and stopping of any noise that is generally the most disturbing. It is claimed that they will only be used at peak times which it is claimed will likely to be during the day. The lighting will be needed more at night and electric lighting does not power itself no matter how ecologically efficient it might be.
At (4.25) reference is made to the benefits of the 3.4 m perimeter fence limiting use outside the site. This fencing will be unsightly and will lead to additional pressure on the SSSI through forcing walkers to bypass the site.
The lighting proposed is on 9.1 m high towers, which will clearly be visible over a 3.4 m fence.
These show a continuous 3.4 m high steel fence. Subject to engineering advice I would say that 3.4 m high solid fencing requires more support than shown. Wind load will be quite high and the pins may have to be piles, removal of which would be next to impossible.
At (2.3) the applicant claims that the site forms approximately 2% of the area of Wanstead Flats. This may be so but is irrelevant and misleading. The site is substantially about half the width of the southern end of the Flats. The fence would prevent access from the neighbouring areas to the south except by walking across either the football pitches to the west of Lake House Road or the SSSI immediately abutting the site.
At (2.9) reference is made to informal footpaths and a horse-ride track (sic) across the site. They would be informal because the use of the Flats is informal by its nature.
At (2.11) and (2.12) reference is made to the fairs and circuses that visit the Flats. It is claimed that people who would not otherwise visit the Flats visit them which may be so, although neither relevant nor substantiated. It is claimed that car parking them tales place on the grass area to the south of the site. I have never known this to be so and in any event there is no space. It is claimed that they visit three or four times a year and stay for ten to twelve days.
Whilst I am not sure that this is true, the fact is that fairs and circuses are in any event popular events and have been held in the forest for centuries. They sit comfortably with the purpose of the Epping Forest Act, being the use of the Forest as an open space for the recreation and enjoyment of the public. They do not involve enclosure to anywhere near the same extent. Fencing is see through and the area is much smaller.
What alternative provision is being made for them? The applicant seems to completely ignore this aspect.
At (3.2) due to the illegality of the proposed use it is claimed that a Legislative Reform Order will allow this use. It is not accepted that an LRO can legally be made despite the draconian nature of the LRRA.
At (5.3) the benefit of the proposal is alluded to, although with no specific justification, and reference is made to the normal use of muster and briefing stations at large events such as the Notting Hill Carnival. Notting Hill is mentioned in several places yet I find no mention of it on the net even searching in Google.
At (6.21) the open space as a community resource for various functions including travelling fairs is noted.
At (6.48) and (6.51) they quote Borough Wide Policies yet omit:
“Local Development Framework Borough Wide Primary Policies Development Plan Document Policy E2” — Nature Conservation The Council will protect and where appropriate enhance the Borough’s natural heritage, including the Blue Ribbon Network, and landscape features. Planning permission will be refused for development having an adverse impact on Sites of Nature Conservation Importance, Heritage Land, Green Corridors (as identified on the Proposals Map), the Roding Valley, protected trees and on important species. The Council will not normally grant planning permission where development on land within or outside a Site of Special Scientific Interest will have an adverse effect on the site (either individually or in combination with other development). In considering adverse impact to Heritage Land, the Council will take into account the following:
Wanstead Flats: protect the special character and quality of the open space. Redbridge Nature Conservation Supplementary Planning Document List of Sites of Nature Conservation Importance in London Borough of Redbridge as at 29 September 2005 Sites of Metropolitan Importance: M140 Wanstead Flats and Bush Wood/Epping Forest South”
From this it would seem that the Council is not able to grant consent except in contravention of its own stated policies.
At (7.8) it is claimed that “The Olympic site itself does not have enough space for a briefing centre of this kind. Whilst security and policing formed part of the Olympic bid, matters of detail in relation to this and other matters were not known at that point.”
Such a fundamental error in their own planning does not justify granting consent to the application, particularly when there are, contrary to their own claims, many alternatives available.
At (7.15) it is claimed that “The second criterion related to direct access from an A Road. This would ensure access to key arterial routes, avoid more localised residential roads, allow for access without traversing land in other ownership and is not subject to narrow or traffic calmed routes.”
Is this perhaps why traffic calming is being removed from Cann Hall Road, despite the claim elsewhere that access to the Olympic site would be via a circuitous route via the Green Man roundabout and the A11?
At (7.36) again reference is made to fairs and circuses which are not comparable.
At (7.39) is is claimed that “In relation to the recreational impact, one of the criteria used in the site selection procedure sought a site which minimised the impact on local activities and recreational use. The size of the MBDC when considered on other sites left no recreational space for public use. The advantage of Wanstead Flats is that due to its expanse the majority of the site will remain for recreational use. The site has required the temporary re-routing of the informal horse ride track but this is only a few metres to the south and a route would still exist between the proposed MBDC and tree belt located to the rear of properties on Sidney Road. All other recreational aspects will remain including the use of Jubilee Pond, adjacent children’s playground, Alexandra Lake, dog walking, cycling, sports pitches, the model flying club and all other uses outside the MBDC.”
This is disingenuous. People can walk onto the Flats from the south west and will tend to walk over the area in question. Its closure would divert them into the wet grassland of the SSSI to the north where walking is less easy and would be more detrimental to the land, or onto the playing fields to the west where there would be conflict with sporting activities. If the application were to be permitted the effect would be to seriously affect the recreational use of the Flats, which is their very purpose.
At (7.48) reference is made to lighting being designed to avoid spillage outside the site. However, lights some 9m high will easily pollute across a 3.4m fence.
At (7.49) an unspecified ecological enhancement is claimed based on the fact that a fee is to be paid for the proposed use.
There are then various spurious references to noise levels marginally exceeding guidelines, yet failing to explain what increase there will be, which is a far more important consideration.
At (7.78) reference is made to an exclusion zone around the site not being intended but being subject to review. This is as good as saying they have no idea what they are proposing but would like carte blanche to construct on the Forest, regardless.
At (7.85) and (7.86) they predict a very convenient downturn in traffic to balance the projected increase.
They also conveniently omit any reference to the two mini-roundabouts that constitute the junction of Centre Road, Lake House Road, Blake Hall Road, and Aldersbrook Road, which are always difficult.
The two mini-roundabouts omitted from their traffic analysis have the highest density of accidents shown in the report.
At (4.7.1) they state “There are areas of Centre Road that currently do not have parking restrictions. It is not expected that parking in these areas will occur in a manner to affect the MBDC operation. If any parking problem does emerge, the Police will be able to apply temporary parking restrictions to ensure the traffic flow along Centre Road is not unduly affected.”
This effectively means that should the other activities lead to parking that interferes with the proposal, parking restrictions, ie restrictions on those other activities, being the only lawful uses, will be imposed. This is a further imposition not highlit elsewhere.
Effectively they are saying there will be no adverse effect on parking because they can restrict public parking if necessary, thereby further restricting the public’s use of the Flats.
I urge the authority to reject the application for the various reasons outlined above.
This document was translated from LATEX by HEVEA.