Help ensure the best possible reinstatement of Leyton Marsh

We have been working hard behind the scenes to ensure that Porter’s Field Meadow (Leyton Marsh) is not only protected in posterity but that the remedial works see the area reinstated to the very best condition possible.

We do not want short-term remedies that release the ODA from their legal obligations.

Our environmental team has researched and prepared documentation which the ODA has used as a basis for their reinstatement plan.

However, we are not convinced about all aspects of the Reinstatement Plan (20120711 v1), so again we are asking for your support.

Please write with any objections you may have to Terunesh.McKoy@walthamforest.gov.uk
A large number of submissions will make a difference when the planning committee are making their decisions.

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.

 

 

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s