This is the April "lock down" edition of the Save Lea Marshes News. There can be few of us who remain untouched by the effects of the Coronavirus by now, either having symptoms ourselves; or knowing friends and relatives who have suffered, including those who have not survived.
We have all had to adjust our routines and learn new on-line skills. The upside to this troubling time has been time to think and reflect about where we and the planet are heading. The improvement in air quality through less use of cars and aeroplanes and our wildlife seeking to push back the boundaries created by humans, has been, I think, positive. So too, has been people seeking to do their daily exercise out around our local green spaces. Although, a little frustrating to keep the 2 metre distance at times, the fact that people are using the marshes and the river side for fresh air and exercise, clearly demonstrates a need and a greater interest in our wildlife (which we hope people won't lose). In contrast the Lee Valley Ice Centre and other buildings remain shut and unused.
Talking of which - some members of SLM virtually attended the on-line Lee Valley Regional Park Authority's Authority meeting on Thursday 23 April, primarily to challenge a remark made by the Committee Chair in the last minutes which referred to Leyton Marsh, where the current Ice Centre sits and the vacant site at Eton Manor as "poor land". The Chair addressed this point near the beginning of the meeting by saying that this remark must have been misheard and that he had said "all land"... Both sites have Metropolitan Open Land (MOL) status.
We gleaned from the Authority meeting, that the decision for the new Ice Centre is likely to be made by the London Borough of Waltham Forest's Planning Committee in July, and that this could be a virtual meeting, if current social distancing precautions are still in place.
Other topics covered by the Chief Executive Officer, Shaun Dawson et al, included, the effects of the current lock down on its operational and financial position and what was being done to offset - such as "furloughing" some staff under the Government's scheme and looking at ways of partially reviving some of the closed buildings when legislation was eased and hiring out one of their car parks as a Covid 19 test centre. It wasn't really explained how a new Ice Centre/Leisure Centre costing approximately £30m would fit into the less brave new world that we can expect.
Members of the public were excluded from Part Two of the discussion, which concerned the current legal case over the LVRPA's decision not to continue their contract with their existing separate operational Trust for running their venues to but to appoint another,(as covered in a previous SLM News), but we await the outcome with interest.
DANCE MUSIC FESTIVAL LICENCEWe've heard that the Waltham Forest Licensing Committee will be looking at the application for the Dance Music Festival on the Waterworks site in proposed for August this year and for two subsequent years, will be taking place virually on 12 May, at we think, 3.00 p.m., with some on-line public access.
EXPERIENCE OF ON-LINE PUBLIC MEETINGS
From personal attendance of firstly, the LVRPA Authority meeting, mentioned above, and secondly the London Borough of Hackney's Planning Sub Committee, also held on 23 April, where the two items on the agenda were: (1) The Olive School and whether it was acceptable, due to delays in construction, to have two intakes start in September (totalling 180 pupils), of reception and young age or to stick with the 90 pupils that the school's managers themselves suggested in order to get its plans past the Government Inspectorate. A representative from the group Conserve Lower Clapton, that has been opposing the school development, bravely spoke against the increase in pupil numbers. A good turn out of over 50 on line participants (including the committee members, staff, members of the public etc.), were partaking in the meeting.
Item (2) was the next phase of the Woodberry Down development.Despite, some very well-meaning environmental and social comments made by Members of the Planning Sub Committee, the outcome of both decisions was a unanimous go ahead on both schemes. So, regardless of the delivery method of the committee, it would seem to be business as usual, with the majority of development proposals being supported by officers, being approved.
It would be good see a numerical audit being done on the outcomes of planning sub committees, where members of the general public challenge the status quo, because from personal experience, the results generally support the development proposals and where the committees do oppose, it is often the case that the applicants will come back for another try. It is fair to say that planning committees do make a difference, in being able to ameliorate plans of developers but lack of power against Government (as in the case of the Olive School), or the need for housing at reasonable cost (Woodberry Down), gets the upper hand. However, it is my opinion that in fairness, members of the public should be able to have more than a paltry five minutes (which might have to be shared with others), and a chance to come back to an argument as development representatives are permitted to.
As to whether the on-line participation works, I would say, that it is better than nothing. During this Hackney Planning Sub Committee, where observers were off mic and off visual, you did feel a bit frustrated as part of the "silent minority". However, the practical sides of the system, with a couple of technical exceptions worked well. I was slightly taken off guard, when the Chair asked observers, for an assessment of how it went.
No comments:
Post a Comment
All comments welcome - but please be polite!