LEYTON: Anger as Olympic centre on green space approved (From East London and West Essex Guardian Series)
Get involved: send your pictures, video, news & views by texting WFNEWS to 80360, or email us
LEYTON: Anger as Olympic centre on green space approved
11:04pm Tuesday 7th February 2012 in News By Sarah May Hayes
Protestors prior to last nights' meeting
MORE green space will be out of bounds to residents during the Olympics after a controversial plan for a temporary training centre on protected land was approved.
More than 80 people protested before a decisive meeting on Tuesday (February 7) against the proposal for a basketball court, a car park and a holding area on Leyton Marshes.
Opponents, including 1250 who signed a petition, claim many people would be deprived of an important green space for eight months with no material benefit to the borough.
They also fear the development will cause long-term damage to wildlife.
But Labour members of the committee pushed the Olympic Delivery Authority (ODA) plan through, saying the Olympics created “exceptional circumstances”.
Ed Northover, committee member and Tory member for Larkswood, said: “I think the legacy of the Games will be good for the host boroughs and there are a lot of positive things coming out of the Games which I think we should embrace.
“But building on these marshes, albeit temporarily, is in breach of every planning policy we have in London.”
Committee chairman Peter Barnett responded: “I can see what you’re saying, and I do agree that we would only ever do this if it was very exceptional circumstances, but I believe the Olympics is exceptional circumstances and I am in favour of this as long as I have reassurances that the field will be in pristine condition come October 15.”
Reacting to the committee’s decision, Katy Andrews, co-chairwomen of the Lammas Land Defence Committee, said compaigners were angry.
She said: “We are very disappointed that part of Leyton Marshes was the only bit that was open to the public this summer and now that’s gone.
“We’re livid and we will have a meeting to discuss where we go from here.”
A spokesman for the ODA said: “We are delighted. We will be working to keep any impact on this section of Leyton Marsh to an absolute minimum and will restore the land to public use as soon as possible.”
The Lee Valley Park Authority, which owns the marshes, will receive £65,000 for the use of the land. The public will be deprived access to a number of green spaces in the borough during the games.
Drapers Field in Leyton will be used as a storage area, while a campsite is planned for the Waterworks Nature Reserve and Golf Centre in Leyton and Low Hall playing fields in Walthamstow.
A company has claimed to have sealed a deal to create campsites at Ive Farm playing fields in Leyton and on land at George Monoux College in Chingford Road, Walthamstow.
The council said any money earned from the use of green space will be used for community events. Part of Wanstead Flats will also be used as a temporary police base.
Comments(25)
goodgardener
says...
10:31am Wed 8 Feb 12
The Council admitted they felt bullied and that the timing of the planning application was cynical. They were aghast that there was no EIA preceding the application. They even admitted it broke all their planning rukes. Despite all this they scraped a vote 'for'. Those who voted 'for' should be ashamed of themselves for selling out their constituents and the environment.
muchbarking
says...
12:09pm Wed 8 Feb 12
mdj
says...
12:14pm Wed 8 Feb 12
Well, the factories at Lammas Way and Argall Avenue were put up in 'exceptional circumstances' during the First World War, and we can all see how caringly the open space was reinstated.
What bond has the Council taken, as we are told it is taking from the campsite entrepreneurs, to guarantee these 'reassurances'? Words are cheap.
The Committee have admitted that the application did not comply with the planning laws: there have been 7 years to prepare an EIA for this proposal, and yet it was bundled through at the last minute.
Further proof that Councillors do not represent the people who pay their salaries, but will listen to special interests every time.
sidestep
says...
2:23pm Wed 8 Feb 12
muchbarking
says...
3:21pm Wed 8 Feb 12
muchbarking wrote:''In my world it's not enough to keep repeating 'We've worked very hard' with the local authority and land owner, with saying HOW precisely...''
I'm so disappointed that this development has been sanctioned when the arguments put for it were so weak. In my world it's not enough to keep repeating 'We've worked very hard' with the local authority and land owner, with saying HOW precisely, or to keep repeating that they had looked for other sites without explaining where or how. None of the ODA's statements were backed up with evidence. Obviously the LBWF planning committee has less rigorous standards when evaluating information than the average school teacher.
Should have said without... doh!
Walthamster
says...
3:31pm Wed 8 Feb 12
If anyone knows how to restore ground that's been covered by a car park and buildings to its perfect untouched state -- and within a few weeks -- everyone in the world would like to know how it's done.
I think it's known as working miracles!
Don't Give Up
says...
4:48pm Wed 8 Feb 12
mcfingers
says...
11:57pm Wed 8 Feb 12
Silent Majority 2009
says...
4:48pm Thu 9 Feb 12
Mr Omneo
says...
5:21pm Thu 9 Feb 12
The more I see and hear the less inclined I am to give them my vote...
Walthamster
says...
5:49pm Thu 9 Feb 12
The Lib Dems were the same when they shared power, and the Tories are powerless in Waltham Forest anyway.
So much for democracy.
BarryBRB
says...
11:04am Fri 10 Feb 12
Children welcome but sorry no dogs.
stickmanny
says...
1:01pm Fri 10 Feb 12
stickmanny
says...
1:01pm Fri 10 Feb 12
stickmanny
says...
1:01pm Fri 10 Feb 12
stickmanny
says...
1:01pm Fri 10 Feb 12
stickmanny
says...
1:01pm Fri 10 Feb 12
stickmanny
says...
1:01pm Fri 10 Feb 12
stickmanny
says...
1:01pm Fri 10 Feb 12
mdj
says...
4:43pm Fri 10 Feb 12
It's interesting to see an article in the paper which does not appear online. It shows that many of our Councillors, including those who voted through this scandalous proposal, cannot be bothered to register their details, including financial interests, as the law requires. One wonders what validity their decisions have while they themselves have not validated their position: any lawyers who can tell us?
Walthamster
says...
6:26pm Fri 10 Feb 12
mdj wrote:Very disturbing. I've noticed that some councillors don't seem to know anything about the laws they're meant to be keeping.
stickmanny, enough with the fingers!
It's interesting to see an article in the paper which does not appear online. It shows that many of our Councillors, including those who voted through this scandalous proposal, cannot be bothered to register their details, including financial interests, as the law requires. One wonders what validity their decisions have while they themselves have not validated their position: any lawyers who can tell us?
Also, the WF Guardian reported a few months ago that 13 of our councillors are landlords (or closely related to a landlord). But if they haven't all declared their interests, presumably that number could be much higher.
That could explain why the council sells so much public land for housing, despite campaigns to try to keep local jobs and amenities.
SpursSupporter1
says...
8:21pm Fri 10 Feb 12
BarryBRB
says...
11:39am Sat 11 Feb 12
Walthamster
says...
12:26pm Sat 11 Feb 12
The once-thriving shopping arcade in Walthamstow town centre that the council closed down a decade ago. The council spent literally millions on buying out the leases, demolishing the useful little shops, commissioning a string of fantasy plans and finally concreting it over. Security alone cost millions over the years!
It closed St James Street Library to save £70,000 a year, and then paid to board it up and send the books to Edmonton incinerator. The council actually paid a security company to put in 'tenants' -- anyone else would have charged them rent!
Many other examples of how this council squanders our money: the BNI poor fund, the donation of Folly Lane land to friends of councillors and so many more -- you can look them up, on this newspaper's web site.
Profits are being made all right, but they're not going into public funds.
BarryBRB says...
8:32am Wed 8 Feb 12
A public meeting is being arranged to give waltham forest and hackney residents the chance to discuss how to
Progress the campaign against the courts.