Open Space |
This page is part of the campaign to
Save the Epping Forest Act.
It was hastily compiled from comments by
David Bowden (a Chartered Building Surveyor),
Tot Brill (whose house is immediately adjacent to the site) and
Newham Council.
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.
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.
The application quotes Redbridge 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.
Newham Council does not support the principle of developing on the Wanstead Flats, even for the temporary period proposed.
The site is designated as Green Belt and Green Corridor land. The site is also designated as Heritage Land and a Site of Metropolitan importance for Nature Conservation. To north of the site is a part of Wanstead Flats that is designated as a Site of Special Scientific Interest. Wanstead Flats as a whole provides access to open space, opportunities for outdoor sport and recreation, attractive landscape and nature conservation interest. We understand that the proposed development also requires a separate Legislative Reform Order to the Epping Forest Act 1878.
Overall the Council is concerned about the loss of amenity for local people by limiting their access to the Wanstead Flats and importantly the precedent that this proposal would set for other potential developments on Wanstead Flats in the future. The Council considers that the site is an inappropriate location for the proposed use.
We would consequently urge the London Borough of Redbridge to refuse the planning application for the above reason.
The Council proposes the following consition in order to‘ ensure that the site is restored to a satisfactory level:
Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, a scheme for the restoration/landscaping of the site shall have been produced by the applicants in . consultation with local residents and the London Borough of Newham Council; and - the restoration/landscaping scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
The commencement of the approved restoration/landscaping scheme shall begin before 21 September 2012 and shall be completed by 21 November 2012.
Her house in Sidney Road is the closest to the site.
Other local residents have argued eloquently the risk and nuisance of this enclosure. The applicant makes frequent reference to fairs, circuses and firework displays on this site to justify their enclosure. These are not as frequent as are implied in the application. The circus happens, when it does take place, once a year. The fair visits the site three times a year, and Newham’s firework display is a recent, and not altogether welcome, once a year occurrence. None of them is of anything like the duration of this proposal. The circus runs for a week, the fairs for 3/4 days (not the 12 days stated in the application, and do not enclose the land) and the firework display lasts one day. While I can live with a short term, and traditional, restriction to the open space I love and enjoy, the restriction to my daily walks and running route for 90 days is something else. I support other objectors in principle objection to this loss of open public space. If this application is agreed I ask that Redbridge Council, and the owners of the land, the Corporation of London, make a public commitment that there will never be another non-recreational enclosure of Wanstead Flats.
The site plan attached to the application shows the perimeter fence closing two bridle paths: to the north of the piece of land known as the plantation north of Sidney Road and at the site’s opening to Centre Road. Both of these routes are used by local residents for horse riding, cycling and walking, as well as being used by disabled residents for access to the Flats. I expect Redbridge Council, if it agrees this application, to insist that the site is moved north to keep free the bridle path from the Jubilee Pond to Centre Road; or that the Metropolitan Police make a new path south of the existing one suitable for horses, cyclists, wheelchair users and walkers. In addition, I ask that Redbridge Council insist that the site boundary finish short of the bridle path that runs parallel to Centre Road to allow horses, cyclists, wheelchair users and walkers to have free access.
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, 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.
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.
This document was translated from LATEX by HEVEA.