Waltham Forest Civic Society has arranged a walkabout of the potential development area for SUNDAY DAY 29th OCTOBER 2023 - meet at 11am at the bus stop opposite Leyton Station by the staircase to Leyton Mills shopping centre. This is not a history walk, but one to explain the issues this development raises and the political way forward.
COMMENTS FROM DR. ROBERT GAY and the WALTHAM FOREST CIVIC SOCIETY
1. The title of the consultation is misleading: I (and
probably many others) thought it was only about the Leyton Mills Retail Park
site, but in fact it covers four sites including the very sensitive
Spitalfields Market site. If you have not received comments from Save Lea
Marshes, it is likely to be because they were misled by the title of the
consultation.
2. When the presentation speaks about "examplar
design" it defines it in terms of the four principles on the cover slide.
None of these four principles speaks about the architectural design of
buildings (what the Secretary of State calls "beauty" and so it seems
that the SPD is going to leave this out. In particular, on slide 02
"designed to exemplary standards" may have nothing to do with the
architectural design of buildings so as to be good to look at. Looking at the
image at the top of slide 06, it looks pretty well the same as the images of
the development at the Homebase site in Walthamstow. It seems all the Council's
proposed developments will look the same.
3. The presentation speaks about protecting the biodiversity
of Hackney Marshes but it says nothing specific about protecting particular
species and in particular nothing about the bats which are a protected species
and would suffer from light pollution from tall residential buildings.
4 . Slide 03 reports comments under "Biodiversity and
Climate Resilience" about protecting the Marshes and River Lea, but the
skyline from the Marshes would be adversely affected by any buildings exceeding
six storeys on the Spitalfields Market site (four storeys on the side nearer
the Marshes) and similarly for Temple Mills Bus Garage and Eton Manor, or
exceeding about 8 storeys on the Leyton Mills Retail Park site.
5. Slide 03 also reports comments that "height and
density of development is a key concern" but slide 04 only offers "take a considered
approach to the location of tall buildings" and so takes it for granted
that there should be tall buildings on these sites. We consider that an
adequate contribution to housing need could be built without tall buildings,
and any tall buildings on these sites will interfere with the enjoyment of the
Marshes and also with the townscape of Leyton Town Centre including the
settings of listed buildings and of a conservation area.
6. Slide 03 also reports comments in favour of B&Q as
"really useful and well used" but there is nothing in the
presentation about reserving a site for a DIY store/builder's and decorator's
merchant.
7. Asda and B&Q (or whoever replaces them) will need
car/van parking for customers to take away a week's groceries or buildings
supplies but the presentation says nothing about providing decks of parking
above the stores and below the housing and we suspect that the council is just
wishing for people's actual transport needs to go away.
8. There is also a need to improve the exit for vehicles
from the Leyton Mills Retail Park site, as the present jams at the roundabout
where Marshall Way meets Orient Way are very bad for air quality.
9. Slide 03 reports comments in favour of family homes with
gardens but the presentation says nothing about these or where they will go.
10. We support de-culverting the Dagenham Brook as far as
possible and improving buffers between the A12 and the Leyton Mills Retail Park
site and between the Spitalfields Market site and East Marsh. But these are not
a substitute for keeping the developments low/medium rise as explained above.
11. We do not consider the proposed green spaces within the
developments "large" or "generous". They are little patches
of green. We wish to see the whole North half of the Spitalfields Market site
"re-marshed" in accordance with Government guidance.
12. There should be a "green bridge" over Eastway
between the Spitalfields Market site and Eton Manor.
13, It is a mistake to rely on a new station at Ruckholt
Road to provide an adequate Public Transport Accessibility Level for
developments, because of the lack of capacity at Stratford station. There is
also a limit to capacity on the Central line, which will not be improved by
improving Leyton tube station.
14. The Council's plans seem overall to disregard the
desirablility of using existing buildings (such as the Leyton Town Hall annexe,
now the Legacy Business Centre) and such as existing churches and church halls
for cultural and community uses and instead have new (smaller) buildings for
such uses built as part of new developments. This is contrary to the
desirability of reusing existing buildings and so reducing carbon outputs.
RUCKHOLT STATION
WALTHAM FOREST TRANSPORT CONSULTATIVE GROUP MINUTES 7th June 20234. National Rail
a) Ruckholt Road/Meridian Line
CB: Last time CB came to PTCG to investigate possibility of station at Ruckholt Road and Hall Farm Curve (Chingford to Stratford line). LBWF commissioned a study, limited to timetable monitoring i.e., is it safe to run those additional services? Conclusion of study is that there are significant challenges for both. To run two additional services an hour between Chingford to Stratford, particularly in terms of dwell time at Stratford station, would require re-timetabling other services. The impact on passenger and freight trains wouldn’t be acceptable to external stakeholders. This work was exclusively limited to modelling the timetable, so NR still looking at taking this forward with LBWF through an economic case. This would work to justify spending more money to introduce those services.
RG: Is the timeframe of the study looking at the next five years? Are NR taking a long-term view in terms of movement of people (particularly in terms of people going back to work in The City) and are you just doing simple cost-benefit studies or looking at the social and environmental value of train travel?
CB: Funding for enhancements is not tied to five-year periods. Five-year periods are for operations, maintenance and renewals (OMR) to keep the trains running and in a steady state. In terms of enhancements/significant changes (new bridges, stations, lines), these can be brought forwards outside of the set five-year period. A local authority recently used development contributions to support creation of a new station outside Chelmsford, to serve new development there. Still need to secure funding from somewhere to do it.
In terms of assessing future demand, strategic planning teams look at what might be needed 30 years in advance. They factor in housing plans of local authorities and demographic change. Still don’t know what post Covid picture will look like. It is especially difficult to understand what will happen while we have been in a period of industrial action.
BCR (Benefit Cost Ratio) hasn’t been put together for this study. It has just been about how you could run the services. BCR means you can go to the Treasury and for every £1 you spend you get X back. The BCR would consider environmental impact. For example, a freight scheme would consider how many lorries you’re taking off the road and therefore improvements to air quality and congestion. A BCR is less relevant if a project is funded outside the DfT process. If you had a developer who was happy to fund it, you wouldn’t necessarily need one.
RG: Local Plan is forecasting 27,000 new homes and many of them are clustered around the stations on the Chingford Line. What is the longer-term view (heard about in the press) about restructuring at Stratford?
CB: If there is lots of new housing then we may be able to build the economic case. Strategic Outline Business Case is being submitted about Stratford within a matter of weeks to restructure the station.
TB: TB’s understanding is that the timetable modelling has come up with the problem of resilience – we can increase resilience with the Meridian Line. It has been a productive process talking to Officers but is it worth involving the Deputy Mayor at the GLA? Could influence Cambridge to Stratford Line.
CB: If you are asking if the Meridian Line gives you more timetable leeway, then no as Stratford has no more capacity. For example, we need to build in dwell time for each train at the station to give the timetable some resilience. Running more services would remove the dwell time for many services, increasing the chance of disruption across the network. If the train comes in late, it will impact a huge number of trains. That is the resilience issue for freight trains going to the north or trains going to Cambridge.
TB: But if the station is being redesigned can it facilitate more trains?
CB: There is potential for private sector money to come into scheme but funding is mostly from DfT. NR have looked at varying levels of redesign/interventions, including shifting walkways and adding platforms - currently testing appetite at DfT to provide funding. In terms of a new platform, you might not get anything done if you ask too much/can’t build a strong enough business case. It will still be a very congested station.
TB: Is another problem that it would be difficult to get an operator? Could TfL take it on as an operator?
CB: Too early to consider an operator given the constraints but if there is a workable way to deliver the scheme you could consider it. Need to build economic case to take it forwards.
TB: Has TfL been involved at all?
CB: Currently NR are the guiding mind for operating services – balancing everyone’s competing demands. We would be ones to do timetable modelling to decide what steps industry takes next.
JJ: Stratford redevelopment is priority with partners, NR, LLDC etc. Firstly need to get to other side of this step with NR.
RG: If there is a change of government there might be a change in funding for TfL.
TB: Can there be regular meetings with NR and LBWF officers?
