HOMEBASE
Tuesday, 23 February 2021
Homebase Update 11
Monday, 22 February 2021
LBWF - Families and Homes Hub - Update 6
The Planning App 210250 has been submitted for a new tower block on the site of the old Wood Street Library. It will be adjacent to Woodside School and overlook it. It rises to 11 storeys and will have 67 flats. Some will be Affordable, Partly affordable and Market price. To separate the different categories there will be 3 lifts. 2 for the higher floors with the good views at Market price and one for the lower floors with Affordable prices.
Part of the Ground Floor will be a shop and the rest a reception area for the Families and Homes Hub with a first floor of private offices and interview rooms.
Send your objections in by mid March
dmconsultations@walthamforest.gov.uk
pedro.rizo@walthamforest.gov.uk
Briefing for Planning Committee
Demolition nearing completion just before the school returns
Old Library Building being demolished
SAVE - a lecture about tall buildings
Subject: SAVE EVENT: Lessons from Manchester - why tall buildings matter - 24th February 2021
|
A4W Update
Good morning,
RE: Redevelopment of Whipps Cross Hospital
We previously wrote to you on 20 November 2020 as we launched a significant consultation with our staff and local people seeking feedback and ideas on emerging designs for a brand new Whipps Cross Hospital and the redevelopment of the wider site.
We are writing to you again now – as we launch the second phase of consultation - to share our updated designs which have been further developed, following the valuable feedback we received from staff, local people and hospital users.
Our plans aim to transform the area by creating a new, state-of-the-art NHS hospital, surrounded by green spaces, with improved access to the site and re-establishing its connection to its setting in Epping Forest.
A new hospital at Whipps Cross, providing the same core NHS services as today, including emergency care and maternity, will offer improved modern facilities, in better surroundings, for the whole community. A flexible hospital design, able to adapt to future healthcare demands, will have more clinical space for doctors, nurses and other health professionals to treat patients within an environment of improved care and wellbeing.
The updated designs we are sharing with you today build on our ‘hospital in a garden and a garden in a hospital’ vision for Whipps Cross, previously set out in November.
We have incorporated feedback from staff and from local people in the latest designs. We have made changes to ensure the hospital has space on the site to expand in the future, if that proves necessary. Also, the most valued parts of the existing buildings will be retained, including the old chapel, to give this part of the site a new lease of life in the future. This will be part of the wider development of the site, to create a new neighbourhood with homes and community facilities. The revised proposals also include a new landscaped route through the site and a new park, creating a stronger ‘green’ connection between the hospital and the forest. Finally, we have also developed our plans to improve car parking on the site, including, subject to planning permission, the construction of a 500-space multi-storey car park to be completed ahead of the construction of the new hospital.
We have undertaken wide engagement with patients, staff, the public and their representatives to get to this stage. Through this second phase of consultation, we are seeking views on the updated designs for the hospital, car parking and outline plans for the development of the wider Whipps Cross site.
We value your feedback on these updated designs, which will help us to shape the proposals further before we submit planning applications to Waltham Forest Council this spring.
Attached is our latest information booklet that is being published on our website and distributed widely to local residents. It provides details of our updated designs and how we have responded to people’s feedback. Further information about our vision, the story so far, the proposed designs, and other materials can also be found on our website bartshealth.nhs.uk/future-
Please share any feedback you have on the updated proposals by contacting us or completing our online survey: https://future-whipps-survey.
To find out more about the plans, ask any questions and give your feedback you are also welcome to join one of our online discussion meetings. These are taking place on:
- Saturday 27 February, 10.30am-11.30am
- Tuesday 2 March, 12pm-1pm
- Thursday 4 March, 6.30pm-7.30pm
To register your attendance, please visit whipps-cross-development2.
In the meantime, if you have any questions regarding the proposals, please get in touch with Lottie Colquhoun on 020 7612 8481, or via our dedicated email address at FutureWhipps.BartsHealth@nhs.
Yours sincerely,
The Whipps Cross Redevelopment Team
Tuesday, 9 February 2021
The Mall - Town Centre Update 10
LBWF have approved the Town Centre plans so the next stage is to raise objections with the Mayor/GLA.
GLA/2020/6607
Send your objections to:
Town Centre: scott.schimanski@london.gov.uk
Station: gavin.mclaughlin@tfl.gov.uk
Jennette Arnold GLA Cllr: jennette.arnold@london.gov.uk
The main objections are below:
WALTHAMSTOW STATION
We understand that £14.6m has been ring fenced by TfL for
the new entrance to Walthamstow Station. Is this just for constructing the
concrete box to house the station or is it to fit out as well? We understand
that the station box has to be completed by 2025 otherwise it will not be able
to be constructed due to the works on the shopping Mall - is this correct?
WALTHAMSTOW TOWN SQUARE
We are to lose most of the usable open space in Walthamstow
Town Centre due to expansion of the Mall. How does this comply with the London
Plan policies GG2 and GG3 which are about improved access to and quality of
green spaces? What is the point of these policies when they are so blatantly
ignored? An extra 538 flats are to be built as well as a new station entrance significantly
increasing the footfall in the Town Square, but you are allowing the open space
to be removed. It makes no sense in planning terms only in revenue raising
terms.
WALTHAMSTOW TOWN CENTRE
You are going to allow a 34 and 26 storey blocks to be built
over 5 or more years, adjacent to the Victoria line tracks, to save costs using
an off site modular construction process barely tried and tested, before the
Grenfell Inquiry is complete and the building regulations revised. Is this not
a risk too far which could seriously damage Walthamstow’s economy? The scheme
was conceived over 10 years ago and ignores the lessons of the pandemic, Grenfell
and the NHS Care in the Community plans.
OVERCROWDING WALTHAMSTOW TOWN CENTRE
Walthamstow’s street market pre Covid was very busy and
created congestion in the High Street. Allowing 538 new flats, a new station
entrance, a reduction of 32% in the open space, expansion of the Mall shopping
centre and a 5 year construction period can only congest the area further – how
can you justify this damage to Walthamstow’s thriving Town Centre?
OFF SITE MODULAR CONSTRUCTION
Is there enough experience of building 34 storey buildings off site and bringing them on site and bolting together. Is the fire risk less than conventional construction techniques? How many lorry movements will be needed to bring on site 538 flats? How many parts will be needed for each flat?
5 biggest Modular Buildings in the World (2018)
Selborne Park
Time to save Kingston and London from the "London" Plan
Caroline ShahKingston upon Thames, ENG, United Kingdom
26 JAN 2021 —
Dear everyone
I hope that you are all keeping well.
Please read about the challenge I hope to bring against the London Plan, which is already leading developers to apply for permission for high-rise, dense and out-of-character developments, with little or no extra green space, across Kingston and throughout London.
I have already received advice from Marc Willers QC that there are grounds for challenging the London Plan on its heritage policies.
In addition, I have been investigating a possible case based on flawed processes for public consultation; conclusions that development will not harm Richmond Park and other protected habitats that can be undermined by expert opinion and scientific evidence; the Mayor's plans for Kingston, especially in relation to the designation of the Borough as an "opportunity area"; and the plan's open spaces policies.
I am seeking advice to confirm that there are legal grounds for each area I have identified.
The London Plan is due to be published very shortly and we will then have only six weeks to mount a possible legal challenge.
Please support me in any way you can. The more people who know about the London Plan, and the need to stop it if it is legally flawed, the better.
Kind regards
Caroline
Monday, 8 February 2021
Estate Way Redevelopment
Estate Way Redevelopment
Save Lea Marshes Newsletter
Save Lea Marshes Newsletter
This is the first Save Lea Marshes (SLM) newsletter of the year. We can only hope that 2021, will be at least a little better than 2020. For the January newsletter I thought that rather than do the usual round-up of what's going on it would be useful to reflect back on 2020, and outline what SLM's priorities are for the time ahead.
THE LEE VALLEY ICE CENTRE
A lot of SLM's time in 2020, was devoted to trying to prevent the proposed twin-pad ice and leisure centre from being built on Metropolitan Open Land. Despite extensive research, lobbying and hours of work, we were unable to convince the Waltham Forest Planning Committee that the ice centre was being built in the wrong place.(/p)
After, the London Mayor's office "waived through" the development following the Waltham Forest Planning Committee, we felt our best option was to try and minimize the amount of damage to the Lee Valley Park area and managed to agree with the Lee Valley Park Authority (LVRPA), that when works were commenced, there would be ecologists on site to supervise clearing and steps would be taken to protect wildlife.
Works began to happen sooner than we thought. Little more than a week after SLM made the request at an LVRPA committee meeting to have ecologists involved and for regular meetings to monitor the work, we were informed that the LVRPA wanted to do some clearing on the site. This, they told us, was partly to try and ensure that any hibernating hedgehogs could be re-homed, partly to carry out some regular maintenance workand partly to clear the space ready for building scheduled for Spring 2021. However, as it turned out it was also very convenient for a booking that the LVRPA had made to have a winter funfair on site.Which was set up ready for the Christmas and New Year Holiday period only to have to be taken down again due to Covid restrictions.
So far in 2021, there has been a fairly positive on-line "site" meeting, with representatives of the LVRPA, SLM and other local wildlife community representatives. Our position remains that the decision to build was a wrong one but faced with what seems the inevitable, we want to try and ensure that the claimed sustainability of the ice centre building plans are adhered to and that there is as little damage to the land as possible. Should this not be the case then we will act accordingly.
WATERWORKS/ LEYTON MARSH AREA
Having been horrified by plans to run a music festival on the land near the Waterworks Centre, SLM and other local activists, swung into action to (a) try to stop the festival taking place due not only to Covid-19 dangers but also damage to the land and disturbance to local wildlife and local people (b) draw attention to the bio-diversity of the land and help enhance its future and (c) to stop the further misuse of this land purely for profit and not for local people or wildlife's interests.
Our campaign included raising the issue through social and other media; contributing to a team of people who wished to speak at the Licensing Committee meeting; organizing a crowd-funding platform to raise funding for independent ecologists to monitor the area for wildlife and plants (this included working collaboratively with the LVRPA's ecologist to add to their work).
This time we were successful in defeating the festival proposal at the Licencing Committee. SLM has no desire to take all the credit - this was also due to many people who supported the campaign and contributed to our crowd-funder. Indeed, we would judge it more as a success for the mobilization of the public and other interest groups.
One thing during the lock-down summer that we observed, was that many more people were coming to the area, partly attracted by the river and "Hackney Beach". We felt that this was partly due to the coverage of the prospect of the festival written about by the Evening Standard, Time Out and other media, attracting people from outside the area to walk, run, cycle, picnic and party.
The dilemma between wanting more people to enjoy the local area and to protect the land, continued through further lock-downs. Currently, one of the pressures is maintaining the grass during the wet weather. Many people don't seem to appreciate the damage they are doing by walking, and cycling over the grass areas at this time and not sticking to the paths. It also has to be said that the tyres marks of maintenance vehicles across and by the edges of paths, particularly on Hackney Marshes, is also a problem.
This newsletter reaches people who already care about the Lea Valley area and its future, a task ahead is to try and get across in a friendly way to make others more aware as they get much needed relief from lockdown life. As more people are familiar with the term "mindfulness", perhaps we can encourage the concept of "mindful walking", that doesn't involve taking short-cuts off paths, when the surfaces are wet or not disposing or taking home their litter. I live in hope...
Allied to the green spaces in this area is the future of the Waterwork's Centre. SLM has been in on-line discussions with LVRPA staff responsible for this facility in a bid to suggest a viable future for this building - which was originally supposed to be a centre for serving and stimulating interest in local wildlife.
SLM presented some proposals and we also set up a dialogue with a local brewery who were interested in improving the food and drink offer at the centre. The initial meetings were encouraging but more recent communications, less so.
SLM does not want to see the building or its surrounding site sold off, rented out for a use that does not serve local needs or protect wildlife. We believe that the use of the building should be for promoting and sustaining wild life interests and activities as well as being a social point for people living nearby. The Lee Valley Park Authority has recently spent a lot of money on a re-building wildlife centre in the north of the district, which is good news. However, we would argue that the south of the area is less well served and should be better supported, particularly due to the larger numbers of people who use the park in this area. We have already seen the local forum meetings and LVRPA committee meetings, which used to be held in the south, fall by the wayside. We do not want to see the Waterworks Centre and surrounding green space being used purely as a "Cash Cow", with inappropriate large, fenced off events taking place there. Watch this space for 2021.
LONDON WATERPARK
Our "sister" organisation East London Waterpark established just over a year ago, is going from strength to strength. Members have been meeting fortnightly on-line and has just become a company limited by guarantee, with the longer term aim of becoming a charity.
Other notable achievements include the setting up and development of the elwp.org website; drawing up architectural and other site plans, contributing to a comprehensive economic and social briefing ready to present to Waltham Forest Council; and (fingers crossed), ELWP will shortly be up on the Spacehive platform for a crowdfunding initiative.
ELWP has been gathering expertise and support along the way. This has included student participation through East London College, University of Westminster Architectural school and others. Although a number of SLM members are involved, we have always sought from the outset that this should be a separate operation involving the wider community and one of the project's aims is to be part of the local employment and social economy as well as being an important environment and leisure facility.
ELWP sees the establishment of safe, wild swimming and other associated environment projects opening up the site into the wider Lea Valley. The site's current occupiers Thames Water and other associated companies have "industrialized" much of the site and it has been shut off from local people. The project aims to work with some of the existing infrastructure (particularly keeping the heritage buildings), and gradually allowing nature to take over.
It is an ambitious project, but ELWP feels that it is a terrific fit for an area between two nature reserves and will help to meet the demand that local people have been demonstrating over the last few summers, of a safe, wild, place to swim in - unlike the current state of the River Lea. The park will need the support of local people and we will keep you informed of progress, through the SLM media outlets and the developing ELWP ones. Watch this space!
FUTURE PLANS..
Some members of the SLM group have been working on mapping traditionally established pathways, "twitterns" and rights of way and getting the London Borough of Waltham Forest to officially protect them. SLM has recently begun to start looking at the Lea Valley area with a view to trying to open up some of the route ways which have been closed off, where it would help with the flow of people, whilst still seeking to keep the land protected. We feel it is all about balance. Yes, there is significant growing demand that can be seen by the numbers of people now using the park but there is also a need to have protected areas that people do not visit on a regular basis to protect wildlife and habitats, particularly as the surrounding areas are being so heavily developed. This is an area of work that should feature a lot in 2021.
OTHER LOCAL CAMPAIGNS
SLM takes very seriously, supporting other campaigns with a connection, relevance or impact on the marshes and other open spaces. One such campaign is the Save Our Square campaign in Walthamstow. Last Wednesday night, the Waltham Forest Planning Committee voted through the revised proposals for the town centre which were agreed about three years ago.
As I sat in on the on-line meeting, I had a strange feeling of "de ja vu". Several local representatives made some hard-felt, well-researched, strong arguments on why the scheme (which includes two extremely tall tower blocks and an extension of the indoor shopping centre), should not go ahead. There was one speaker against. Despite the strong opposition, the Councillors voted 4 to 1 (the one being the Conservative member Alan Siggars, who also did not vote for the first version), to approve the scheme. Whilst Councillors did ask some pertinent questions and show some concern about the need for good quality lower cost housing, this scheme doesn't really address the problems of the majority of people on the housing list and is yet another example of helping developers get what they want.
There has to be a better way of ensuring that people can afford to live in their local areas, without going down the privatized tower block option. Investing in council-funded schemes, with integrated training systems and seriously assessing the numbers of vacant properties that could be rehabilitated. Are just two suggestions. Post Covid 19, we are likely to have less retail and office space needed. Personally, I think there is much more scope to go down the route of live/work units that keep both housing and economics in the town centres. The Save Our Square campaigners have not given up.
Lea Bridge Station development
Lea Bridge Station redevelopment
Squeezed between the Lea Bridge station southbound platform and the newly-built Motion estate is a sloping piece of Council-owned land that, subject to planning permission, will accommodate both the new station entrance and a 20+-storey residential tower. This will involve considerable enabling works, excavation and landscaping due to the angle of the land's current surface.
It wasn't always like this: this part was raised in the early 2000s when the Lea Bridge Road/ Argall Way/ Orient Way junction was remodelled. While it will be more practical for Lea Bridge station to have an entrance, and while access to and from the northbound platform will no longer require the use of two lifts or staircases, the overall design is predicated on fitting in with a huge new tower that will be adjacent.
This week's Planning Committee should be challenged to send the officers' report back for further consideration taking into account the effect on Motion residents' views westwards (especially as they haven't been consulted) and bearing in mind the signs of London population decline (reported on another post). Motion estate is currently failing to meet occupation targets. The committee should seriously consider the increasing possibility of the Station Tower turning out to be an empty shell.
Given the great concern being expressed here and in email/ messenger exchanges, I'm proposing to WRITE FORMALLY TODAY to the Chair of the Growth Scrutiny Committee about a major lapse in the public consultation exercise regarding Lea Bridge Station Sites.
The Council's own regeneration plans for the sites were revealed in detail to the public in 2017 in this set of diagrams. The community in Lea Bridge has since challenged long and hard at this preposterous cluster of towers, and we have achieved some success in getting minor alterations.
Along the way we pointed out to Cllr Miller that the Motion Estate during this time was not yet built, but that when it was, the new residents would be affected by these proposals. It seems the Council has ignored the voice of Beck Square. I will write the letter as from Love Lea Bridge and would like to add 'plus Beck Square'. I WILL POST A DRAFT HERE SHORTLY. PLEASE COMMENT SUPPORT ETC IN THE MEANTIME.