Waltham Forest & Vision Consultation Report Final Report June 2017

REPORT STRUCTURE

Content Page

1. Introduction 3 2. Public Consultation (Events, Online Portal, Emails) & Responses 3 3. Responses from Stakeholders 15 4. 3rd Party Representations 25 5. Objections to building on MOL 45 6. Summary of Consultation Outcomes 56 7. Planning Status of Vision 59 8. Changes to the Vision as Result of consultation 60 9. Council’s detailed Responses 62 9.1 Transport 63 9.1.1 Congestion 63 9.1.2 Parking 63 9.1.3 Enjoy Waltham Forest – Walking and Cycling 64 9.1.4 Bus Services 65 9.1.5 Rail Projects 65 9.1.6 Sustainable Car Initiatives 66 9.1.7 Air Quality 66 9.2 Potential Height and Density Issues 67 9.3 Provision of Affordable Housing 67 9.4 Access to Green Space and Parks 68 9.5 Provision of Social Infrastructure 69 9.6 Shops and Shop Front Improvements 70 9.7 Access and New Links 71 9.8 Urban Design and Public Realm Improvements 72 9.9 Business and Work Space 73 9.10 Night Time Economy including retention of Pubs 73 9.11 Metropolitan Open Land (MOL) 74 9.12 Flooding Issues 75 10. Next Steps 75

Annex

A Full report on comments received during public consultation 76 & Council’s Responses B Consultation Flyer 193 C Consultation Email 193 D Consultation Website 194 E Consultation Questionnaire 195 F Some presentation slides for consultation events 196 G Agenda for Business Round Table Event on 10 January 2017 197 H Petition 198

2

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 The Lea Bridge and Leyton area is a key borough growth area which has recently experienced strong development pressure, particularly for potential residential schemes. The Council has decided to produce a “Vision” document to inform the new Local Plan, building on the previous draft Northern Olympic Fringe (NOF) Area Action Plan (AAP) which was consulted on to issues and options stage, but not ultimately adopted.

1.2 The Lea Bridge and Leyton Vision document is intended to positively position the area in the context of a range of changes in and the South East region, to consider opportunities to provide reinvigorated communities along with new homes, jobs and key facilities in the three areas of Lea Bridge, Church Road and Leyton.

The ambitious regeneration Vision could see the creation of c. 4,000 new homes along with retaining and improving business space capable of generating new local jobs. Improved transport connections, green spaces, new schools and healthcare, all form part of the Council’s vision.

1.3 The Vision document is not a planning document and has little weight in planning terms. It is a high level vision of how the area could develop and change over the next 10 years. The Council has started work on reviewing the Local Plan and will be consult on the Direction of Travel later in 2017. The Lea Bridge and Leyton Vision area will be taken forward as part of that review scheduled for adoption by 2020. Any planning applications which come forward earlier would have to be considered on their own merits against current adopted policies and the National Planning Policy Framework.

2. PUBLIC CONSULTATION & RESPONSES

2.1 A Lea Bridge and Leyton “ Eastside” Vision document was consulted on via an online portal for an 8 week public consultation period from 1st December 2016 to 31st January 2017.

During this time, the document was published on the Council’s website and was made available to the public through the Council’s online consultation portal. See consultation publicity material at Annexes B, C, D and E.

Over 13,000 flyers publicising the exhibitions and consultation exercise were delivered to all homes and businesses in the Lea Bridge and Leyton wards, GP surgeries, local libraries and other public access points including café’s and Leyton Orient Supporters Club.

An editorial piece was published in Waltham Forest News on 5 December, along with adverts publicising the six public exhibitions in three editions on 5, 19 December and 9 January.

A questionnaire (see Annex E) asking respondents to submit their comments on the draft vision was produced and made available to the public on the Council’s website, as well as the Council’s online consultation portal. The web link to the consultation portal was also published on the flyer (see Annex B).

3

In total 228 responses were received during the consultation period through the consultation portal (online questionnaire) individually comprising c. 1,000 comments. Please find all comments and Council responses in Annex A.

2.2 In addition, 10 consultation events were held at public venues in the area. The dates, venues and attendance at the events is shown below:

Event Date, Time, Venue & Type Total

Saturday 7 January, 10.30am-1.30pm, Lea Bridge Library, , E10 7HU – Exhibition 64

Monday 9 January, 2.30pm - 4.30pm, St. Joseph’s Primary School, Marsh Lane, E10 7BL - 22 Exhibition

Monday 9 January, 6:30pm - 7:30pm, Score Centre, 100 Oliver Rd, E10 5JY – Leyton Community Ward 9 Forum

Tuesday 10 January, 9.30-12.30, Leyton Orient Football Club – Round Table, Business 13

Tuesday 10 January, 3.30pm-6.30pm, Lammas School, 150 Seymour Rd, E10 7LX - Exhibition 14

Wednesday 11 January, 5.30pm - 8.30pm, Score Centre, 100 Oliver Rd, E10 5JY - Exhibition 17

Thursday 12 January, 5.30pm - 8.30pm Lea Bridge Library, Lea Bridge Road, E10 7HU – Exhibition 16

Saturday 14 January, 10.30am - 1.30pm, Score Centre, 100 Oliver Rd, E10 5JY - Exhibition 38

Monday 16 January, 5.30pm - 8.30pm, Score Centre, 100 Oliver Rd, E10 5JY – Round Table, 16 Community, Faith and Voluntary Organisations

Wednesday 18th January, 6.30pm - 8.30pm Lea Bridge Library, Lea Bridge Road, E10 7HU – Lea Bridge 30 Community Ward Forum

Total 239

2.3 During the consultation period, over 170 people attended the six public exhibitions.

The Vision plans were shown on banners, and people were able to ask questions of council staff and consultant team members. People were encouraged to fill out the online questionnaire. Paper copies of the questionnaire were also made available to be completed during or after the events, and the Vision document was displayed and available.

2.4 Two round table events were held, one aimed at businesses in the Vision area and the second event aimed at community, voluntary sector and faith groups in the Vision area.

A presentation (see Annex F) was given by the Director of Strategic Planning and Development followed by a Question & Answer session. The discussions were facilitated by council officers in groups at the tables.

 74 businesses were invited - 16 people attended the business event  82 organisations were invited - 30 people attended the Community, Voluntary Sector and Faith Groups event.

4

Comments received at the Community, voluntary and faith sectors consultation event are shown below. The report is structured to show detailed comments in section 9 below from page 62 onwards. The relevant Council response section number is shown in the right hand column below.

Organisation Comments Council’s Response Save Lea Marshes The plans will mean more people. Green spaces are more Comment noted. valuable and we are categorically against. Please refer to section 9.11 Markhouse Corner Pleased to see a vision articulated as we were against 97 Lea Support noted. The & Lea Bridge Bridge Road so it is a good move to have this. Concerned as to Vision has been Residents how much the flood risk has been taken into account. amended to add Association clarification.

Pumphouse Potential to enhance the community infrastructure in the North Comment noted. Museum of the area, utilising the Pump House Museum to do this. Please refer to section 9.5 Markhouse Corner Pleased to be given the opportunity to discuss the whole area Comments noted. & Lea Bridge rather than a piecemeal approach. LVRP held a previous Please refer to Residents consultation suggesting 3 sites for the new ice rink; the existing sections 9.4 and 9.11 Association site, bringing it forward towards Lea Bridge Road, the Waterworks Site and the Olympic Park site. People wanted it at the Waterworks site. Now it transpires that the LVPRA are prepared to sell for development. This never came up and it feels a bit underhand. We’re in favour of keeping and increasing green space. The same thing applies to Leyton Football Club site. Lea Valley Keen to learn when discussions commenced between LVPRA Comments noted. Federation and LBWF. Park authority planning framework is out of date, The Lee Valley but there is a requirement to include the park plan into the Regional Park local development framework. Authority is a key stakeholder in the Lea Bridge and Leyton area and as such was engaged fully as part of the consultation process. Consideration of the park plan will be included as part of the review of the Local Plan. Pumphouse Pump House Museum is just across from St. James Ward, which Comments noted. Museum/Lea Valley has been receiving lots of funding. Previous promises for the Any S. 106 monies Heritage Alliance regeneration of Markhouse Ward have not been delivered. collected to mitigate Keen to understanding future S106 opportunities as individual regeneration thus far seems like a missed opportunity. Running developments will be the W19 bus to Lea Bridge Station would solve the problem of related to the impact people getting from Waltham Stow to Stratford. of the specific scheme. Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) will be collected and used in line with infrastructure 5

projects as listed on the Regulation 123 list. Please refer to section 9.1.4 about bus extension Markhouse Corner There is a lack of community space. The community has lost the Comments noted. & Lea Bridge Leyton Football Club ground, the club went bust and the owner Please refer to Residents decided to let it become derelict. This needs to be retained as sections 9.4 and 9.5 Association community space. It is right next door to the Hare & Hounds which is right at the very heart of the community. Their value to the community needs to be considered, not just get rid of two vibrant community spaces. Leyton Orient Trust Keen to understand how many people equate to 2,500 homes, Comment noted. where they are coming from and how the jobs will be Please refer to delivered. Keen to explore whether the balance is right or sections 9.1.5 and whether it constitutes over-development. Regarding Ruckholt 9.2 Road Station, should consider connecting to cross rail/the Central line. Save Lea Marshes Concerned that there appears to be a theme of planned Comments noted. running down of community facilities e.g. waterworks/Leyton Please refer to FC. The Council should be aware. LVRPA have powers to raise sections 9.4 and 9.11 money through the precept but they want to reduce the precept to zero. We need to be alert to sell-offs of MOL land. The jobs and housing sounds brilliant but can the jobs that are being provided produce the income to buy the housing? Eton Manor The plans are positive as it is tricky for manufacturing/light Comments noted. Running Club industry, particularly with the recent doubling of business Please refer to rates. If you want business to grow, you need to think about sections 9.4, 9.9 and more than just making it nice. We have a membership of 200, 9.11 many of whom use the LVRP and the majority are opposed to development of the waterworks site. The previous commitment to return the pitch and putt didn’t happen. We’ve now been told it’s not viable but this links to the management of the waterworks, which is poor and has never been managed properly. Leyton football club has a deed of covenant for continued sporting use. If it’s not used for 15 years it can be developed. I believe it was a long-term plan of the owner to allow it to go to rack and ruin. Ice Centre User I think the approach to preservation is different here (in Comments noted. London) than other areas e.g. Scotland. The area around the ice A section has been rink is relatively unspoilt but it’s not the safest place to be e.g. added to the Vision can’t walk across as the marshes don’t feel safe. There are focussing on some people who don’t see this land as precious. It seems to ecological assets, me it needs to be regenerated, attractive and well used as part open spaces and of an overall approach to proactive protection. I fully support habitats. sensitive regeneration if there is a genuine commitment to maintain green space. Has to be proactive in approach, can’t just leave it alone. Save Lea Marshes The Marshes are used by thousands of people. It is dangerous Comments noted. to suggest it as a wild, lawless place. Sanitising green space isn’t Please refer to what all want. The edge lands need protecting. section 9.11 Leyton Orient Trust Any plans should include scope to do interesting stuff with an Comment noted. integral role for community groups e.g. collaboration, co- Engagement with production and co-design. local communities will continue through 6

the review of the Local Plan. Table Discussion The density of traffic. Understand the developments will be Comments noted. virtually car free, but there will still be a pressure e.g. Please refer to employers with vehicles. Of an evening, you can see them all sections 9.1-9.1.7 parked. Previously banned lorries parking on the street – need similar approach to all commercial vehicles. A part of the plan should include some parking. Table Discussion Need bus route on Oliver Road. Also, W19 needs to continue to Comments noted. Leyton Mills and back. Please refer to section 9.1.4 Table Discussion Any encroachment of green space alters the ecology of the Comment noted. wildlife. Please refer to section 9.11 Table Discussion Supportive of returning some of the former site Support noted. to green space. Please refer to section 9.11 Table Discussion No objection to keeping the 5 LVRP houses at the park (retain Support noted and improve). Table Discussion Concern about flooding at the waterworks. Comments noted. The Vision has been amended to include additional clarification about flood risk. Please refer to section 8 and also section 9.12 Table Discussion It would be good if you could open up footpaths around the Comment noted. former Thames Water site. Please refer to section 9.7 Table Discussion Concern about regeneration and redevelopment – older people Comment noted. need to be able to park to visit supermarkets as can’t all shop Please refer to on-line. section 9.1.2 Table Discussion People starting to stop using buses because of congestion – Comment noted. perceived as from Mini-Holland. Works in Hackney and has to Please refer to drive as would take 3-4 buses otherwise. sections 9.1.1, 9.1.2, and 9.1.3 Table Discussion Need bus services down Oliver Road – no bus services at Comment noted. present. Please refer to section 9.1.3 Table Discussion Leyton Cricket Ground is currently outside of the vision area Comment noted. but should be included Separate work is being undertaken to improve this site. Please also refer to section 9.6 Table Discussion Supportive of social infrastructure: schools, health hubs, Marsh Support noted. Lane footbridge. Please refer to section 9.5 Table Discussion Support for improvements to Markhouse Corner which is Support and scruffy, but don’t close businesses down. comment noted. Please refer to section 9.9 Table Discussion Difficult access to 2 industrial areas through Etloe, Simmonds Comment noted. and Wiseman Roads. Please refer to 7

section 9.7 Table Discussion Reduce traffic, improve shopfronts and reduce litter including Comment noted. leaves on side roads left under cleansing regime. Please refer to sections 9.1-9.1.7 and 9.6 Table Discussion Extend bus W19 from down to Stratford, serving Comment noted. Lea Bridge station Please refer to sections 9.1.3 and 9.7 Table Discussion Wayfinding in the area needed – visitors can’t find the Comment noted. Pumphouse Museum Please refer to sections 9.7 and 9.8 Table Discussion Build a public square at Lea Bridge Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.8 Table Discussion Save the marshes, green space more important, how has the Comments noted. flood risk been taken into account Please refer to sections 9.11 and 9.12 Table Discussion Low Hall needs more focus – generally the northern part Comment noted. More detailed work will be undertaken about specific sites as part of the Local Plan review. Table Discussion LVRP did consultation but didn’t listen which option people Comment noted. wanted Please refer to section 9.11 Table Discussion LVRP discussion with Council beforehand to release Comment noted. waterworks site for development The Lee Valley Regional Park Authority is a key stakeholder in the Lea Bridge and Leyton area and as such were engaged fully as part of the consultation process. Table Discussion LVRP plan need to be incorporated in vision The Vision is not a planning document and the LVRP plan will be incorporated in Local Plan review. Table Discussion Former Leyton FC – open it up for people again to use the Comment noted. green space Council has commissioned a Playing Pitches Strategy to ascertain need in the area. Please refer to section 9.4

8

Table Discussion Mark House Ward regeneration hasn’t happen – money needs Comment noted. to be spread equally Any S. 106 monies collected to mitigate individual developments will be related to the impact of the specific scheme. Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) will be collected and used in line with infrastructure projects as listed on the Regulation 123 list. Table Discussion Not many community spaces Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.5 Table Discussion Don’t over develop – is it really needed when Brexit happens? Comment noted

Table Discussion 4000 new people won’t fit into Central Line Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.1.5 Table Discussion Connect station to Cross Rail for better connection Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.1 Table Discussion LVRP ran down Waterworks site on purpose so that they can Comment noted. develop it Please refer to section 9.11

Table Discussion Can the jobs that the council is providing pay people to be able Comment noted. to afford those flats the council is building? Please refer to section 9.3 Table Discussion How to get more businesses into Argall – how to get more Comment noted. lorries in there, business rates are going up Please refer to section 9.9 Table Discussion Why did pitch & putt never came back Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.11 Table Discussion Waterworks Centre run down – how could it get into this state Comment noted. in the first place, they have an incompetent business team, Please refer to properties fall derelict on purpose section 9.11 Table Discussion Ice rink is not a safe area - can’t walk through marshes – unsafe Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.11 Table Discussion Marshes should be proactively managed and looked after Comment noted. A section has been added to the Vision focussing on ecological assets, open spaces and habitats. Please also refer to section 9.11 9

Table Discussion Where’s the culture in your plan? Comment noted. Please refer to sections 9.5 and 9.10. The Vision has been amended to include reference to cultural regeneration and facilities. Table Discussion Low Hall is a dead end – need connectivity Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.7 Table Discussion Mental health facilities needed Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.5 Table Discussion Third sector plays an important role Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.5 Table Discussion Need to focus on the community Comment noted. Further engagement will be undertaken with local communities as part of the Local Plan review. Please refer to section 9.5 Table Discussion People need pubs, places where they can meet each other Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.10 Table Discussion Where can young people gather Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.5 Table Discussion Ice rink too expensive, ice rink should be used by non-skaters to Comment noted. socialise as well Please refer to section 9.11 Table Discussion Pumphouse Museum can play a bigger role in the area – place Comment noted to socialise, run events Table Discussion How does the museum link to the area (signage and posting is Comment noted. gone and has not been replaced) Please refer to sections 9.7 and 9.8 Table Discussion Heritage organisations in the area should work together – Comment noted greater places bit Table Discussion Young people need space and activities Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.5 Table Discussion Make activities and pubs affordable for current population Comment noted. Please refer to sections 9.5 and 9.10 Table Discussion So many churches in the area – what activities do they offer Comment noted Table Discussion People don’t feel safe in the area, never see police around, has Comment noted. the police been consulted, safer neighbourhood teams The have been consulted. Table Discussion Council needs to be proactive in building a community Comment noted. Further engagement will be undertaken 10

with local communities as part of the Local Plan review. Please refer to sections 9.5 and 9.10 Table Discussion Build a sense of places – build links, link places with each other, Comment noted. e.g. ice rink should advertise what’s going on at Pumphouse Please refer to Museum section 9.7 Table Discussion Lea vs. Lee – spelling is confusing Comment noted. Lee is used for regional park and Lea for the Lea Valley area. Table Discussion Lea Valley extends further than vision region so name is Comment noted. confusing Document will be called "Lea Bridge and Leyton Vision" to keep each area's identity. Table Discussion Maybe something with Orient could be the name Suggestion noted. Document will be called "Lea Bridge and Leyton Vision" to keep each area's identity.

Comments received at the Business Round Table consultation event are shown below. The report is structured to show detailed comments in section 9 below from page 62 onwards. The relevant Council response section number is shown in the right hand column below.

Comments Council's Response

Overall very positive; investment in the area is well needed – This type of Support noted event is good in order to listen to businesses and gives them an opportunity to say what they think will and wont’ work. Need to get the balance right between enhancing and intensifying Comment noted. This will be considered as particularly in some industrial locations were infrastructure and part of review of the Local Plan. accessibility is a major issue already. Concerns about movement in Ruckholt Road as already heavily used. Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.1.5 Supportive of the proposed new station Concern about the movement of some businesses; not clear where the Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.9 employment spaces would be created Questions on involvement of EFA and Thames Water to agree to the Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.11 development of some sites e.g. loss of MOL. Some of the group felt new businesses wanted a particular type of space Comments noted. Please refer to section 9.9 mainly ground or first floor, layering up would not be attractive to businesses wanting retail and/or manufacturing space. Need for more access, turning and egress routes on the Argall Industrial Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.7 Estate- Can entry and access at Low Hall be opened up to ease traffic congestion

11

Vision name sounds a bit American! Reflects a green landscape which Comment noted. Document will be called reflects Lea Valley, Would need to do a re-branding exercise make it fun "Lea Bridge and Leyton Vision" to keep each and exciting; carry out a website survey or competition; a clear message area's identity. about retaining business, repurposing, opportunities, looking for development partners etc. Access and dead-ends a real concern – clear gateways in and out; new Comments noted. Please refer to sections station will help but many travel by road. Need for better bus routes and 9.1-9.1.7 and 9.7 safer cycling routes. The three areas in Lammas, Argall and Rigg Approach need to work Comments and support noted. Please refer to better. Get mix right in the SIL areas. Opportunity to replace poor quality section 9.9 buildings with new modern fit for purpose ones. Discussions with developers and landowners – earlier on to identify Comment noted. Further engagement will be opportunities undertaken with local communities and businesses as part of the Local Plan review. The area identified to intensify does not offer the best solutions for the Comments noted. The Vision has considered area because of access, problems with intensification of some SIL areas, the whole Lea Bridge and Leyton area and the MOL issues, EFA etc. The area more towards Leyton underground opportunities explored in the document could station/industrial park offered much more opportunity for re-modelling, achieve the right balance of good densification etc. because of better access routes in and out, the development. This will be considered further proposed new Ruckholt Road station is within easy reach. Opportunity as part of the Local Plan review. This will for more homes therefore more people, links better with Coronation include an analysis of the issues and options Square and the Score Centre, much easier sell to investors etc. surrounding how best to accommodate housing growth and a SEA. Positive that the Council are taking a proactive approach to plan for Support noted. Please see section 9.9. Further change in the area but a feeling that Industry is not understood engagement will be undertaken with local communities and businesses as part of the Local Plan review. Concerns about what is meant by enhancing and intensifying Comment noted. Further engagement will be employment areas and in particular industrial land – what would this undertaken with local communities and mean in practice and what it would mean for businesses that are perhaps businesses as part of the Local Plan review. noisy, scruffy or smelly manufacturing businesses Please refer to section 9.9 How could ‘layering’ of businesses work on an industrial estate Comment noted. Further engagement will be undertaken with local communities and businesses as part of the Local Plan review. Please refer to section 9.9 All the businesses are either stable or had plans to grow and are keen to Comments noted. Please refer to section 9.9 get some certainty for their forward planning Keen to explore access and egress for vehicles to Rigg Approach which is Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.7 a particular problem for artics and future plans think about how to remove cul-de-sacs on the estate Low Hall - large depot and space could be better utilised – also Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.7 businesses would like to see access from Low Hall into Argall BID area Concerned about the loss of MOL particularly the former Thames Water Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.11 site Very supportive of the re-opening of Lea Bridge Station and of the Comments noted. Please refer to sections potential at Ruckholt Road but wanted north south routes by bus to be 9.1-9.1.7 explored especially the W19. Concern expressed about the proposed cycle routes on Lea Bridge Road, Comments noted. Please refer to section ideas were put forward for more off road/quiet routes 9.1.3 Hampered by rising rents and short leases. Perhaps there is an Comment noted. Further engagement will be intermediary role for the council to work with Landowners to give greater undertaken with local communities and certainly so they can pass this onto tenants businesses as part of the Local Plan review. Please refer to section 9.9 Keen to explore opportunities within the waterworks site and Greyhound Comments noted. Further engagement will be pub, could a brewery be used as a living exhibit around food/drink undertaken with local communities and 12

production businesses as part of the Local Plan review. Please refer to section 9.9 Robust Transport Infrastructure Comment noted. Please refer to sections 9.1- 9.1.7 How it affects land assembly –e.g. leases agreed earlier – and fairly Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.9 Implement Shop front grant scheme to improve Orient Way/Markhouse Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.6 corner Short Term re-location during works Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.9 Allocate car parking spaces for business visits only Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.1.2 EFA site – possibly provide temp structure to decant industrial businesses Comment noted. Please refer to sections 9.9 and 9.11 Argall should grow and intensify. Replace poor quality within new flood Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.9 river plan – (Orient Way) Affordable rents Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.9 Ruckholt Station – need space! Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.1.5 Discussions with developers re: leaseholders and freehold earlier on and Comment noted. Further engagement will be identify opportunities undertaken with local communities and businesses as part of the Local Plan review. Suggest move old Leyton football club to EFA land Comment noted. Council has commissioned a Playing Pitches Strategy to ascertain need in the area. Re-instate old railway to Fenchurch Comment noted. It is not possible to provide a connection to the Fenchurch Street Line. Argall demolish2-3 storey industrial build – use example to developers as Comments noted. Please refer to section 9.9 good practice on how it can look (Crown House estate) Re-launch asset register Comment noted. The Council continues to manage its assets within the area including a register of its owned assets. Transitions into larger premises Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.9 Some buildings on Lammas Road are relatively new and not in need of Comments noted. Lammas Road is designated redevelopment. Concerns were also raised about the compatibility of SIL and further work will be undertaken as residential accommodation with the existing c. 24 hour urban services part of the Local Plan review. Please also uses in units in Lammas Road, including cash and carry and supply service refer to section 9.9 logistic operations. The question was raised as to whether Lammas Road is the right location for businesses and whether Lammas Road itself should be redeveloped for residential.

2.5 A presentation (see Annex F) and a Q&A session were held at the two Ward Forums (Lea Bridge and Leyton) which were attended by 39 people.

Comments received at the Lea Bridge Ward Forum are shown below. The report is structured to show detailed comments in section 9 below from page 62 onwards. The relevant Council response section number is shown in the right hand column below.

Comments Council's Response

It is a good opportunity to develop the Lea Bridge ward. Support noted A few years ago, a replacement incinerator was discussed to enable Comment noted. The North London Waste renewable energy Authorities are separately progressing plans for the replacement Edmonton facility. There is an allotment site situated on the Argall Estate. However, Comment noted. The Vision envisages that the map which has been circulated has a blank space in the allotment sites will be "retained and enhanced".

13

allotment areas. Will the allotments be included in your plans? The possibility of revising the access arrangements to the Leyton Mills site which affected statutory allotments has been removed from the draft Vision following public consultation. There is also an allotment site opposite Low Hall Depot Comment noted. The Vision envisages that allotment sites will be "retained and enhanced". Please refer to section 9.4 There has already been a consultation to implement a double pad Comments noted. Please refer to section 9.11 ice rink on metropolitan open land. The Lee Valley Regional Park Authority (LVRPA) have agreed to build on the site. They did not say they would sell off open land at any time. A housing development is planned to be implemented on the Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.11 Waterworks site. We have collated 3500 names on a petition against building on metropolitan open land/green belt. We need more green land within London Why doesn’t the Council improve the quality of existing Housing Comment noted. There is a high demand for new instead of building on green space? housing in LBWF. Improving existing stock wouldn’t accommodate the need for new housing. Improvement of existing stock is outside the remit if the Vision. Please refer to sections 9.3 and 9.11 The building and car park on the waterworks site does not justify Comment noted. Please refer to sections 9.5 and implementing Housing on the site. It should be an educational and 9.11 community facility.

Housing shouldn’t be implemented on metropolitan open land Comments noted. Please refer to section 9.11 because there won’t be access to the public. Housing on that site wouldn’t benefit residents in the area because people could not afford to live there. The provision of healthy businesses is important. The Council could Comment noted. Business rates are set nationally offer affordable business rates to businesses. Water meters are by the Valuation Office Agency (VOA), not by the being implemented which is expensive. Council. Business rates could be reduced if the property is eligible for business rates relief. Please refer to section 9.9 There are also a lot of empty shops. Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.6 Road closures in the area are impacting on increased traffic and Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.1.3 journey times. Utilisation of free spaces is important to the elderly and children Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.4 within the area. Cars are polluting the area because engines are running whilst in Comment noted. Please refer to sections 9.1.1, traffic 9.1.6 and 9.1.7 I understand the need for progress and redeveloping the area. Comment noted. The Vision proposes two new However, building a school outside of a residential area is not a good primary schools and the extension of one existing idea school – all within existing neighbourhoods.

Comments received at the Leyton Ward Forum are shown below. The report is structured to show detailed comments in section 9 below from page 62 onwards. The relevant Council response section number is shown in the right hand column below.

Comments Council's Response How do you intend to provide access to transportation for the Comment noted. Please refer to sections 9.1-9.1.7 Industrial areas who need to arrange deliveries? and 9.7 The traffic light infrastructure needs to be improved to increase Comment noted traffic flow within the area. E.g. the traffic lights near to Spitalfields do not work in the mornings and there is congestion 14

between Westfield and as a result of the existing traffic light system

The top end of Orient Way has too many traffic lights. If you take Comments noted and please see sections 9.1.1 and these traffic lights away, it will improve traffic flow. The traffic 9.1.3 light system at the junction also needs improving. The map of the vision doesn’t show the Marsh Lane foot bridge Comment noted. The main Vision slide does show Marsh Lane Footbridge as part of the green dotted line showing links to green and open space. Please refer to section 9.7 I am pleased about the Council’s vision. Well done! Support noted Plans to close the Ice rink and rebuild it on the same site are Comments noted. Any development proposals on ridiculous. There is a risk of loss of customers. I suggest that you either site would need to comply with build a new ice rink opposite to where the new school has environmental health and de-contamination proposed to be built. It is not suitable to build new schools on the regulations. Please refer to section 9.11 old Thames Water site because of pollution implications. The Pitch & Putt was situated behind the waterworks centre until Comments noted. Please refer to sections 9.5 and the Olympics was brought to the area. The population is 9.11 increasing. Therefore, LVRP are supposed to provide recreational facilities to residents. I would like to recommend the pitch & putt facility be reintroduced behind the water works. The Council have built a lot of single person flats. As part of the Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.3 Lea Valley Eastside Vision, I would like to suggest an increase in 2 to 3 bedroom flats instead of single person flats. How high do you intend on building housing developments? Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.2 Some are building 20 storey properties. How will Waltham Forest deliver affordable housing? A lot of Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.3 money has been spent on the Galleon in Marsh Lane. The shop fronts in Bakers Arms need uplifting. Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.6 Are TFL in agreement with the plans to improve Leyton Station Comments noted. Please refer to section 9.1.5 and the building of a new station on Ruckholt Rd? It is important to relieve crowds on Leyton Station. Implementing Comments noted. Please also refer to section 9.1.5 a step free entrance would enable this. The existing step free entrance and exit is not being used. Why can’t we have a similar model to Snaresbrook Station? Lea Valley Regional Park Authority are selling the Waterworks Comment noted. The Vision has been prepared by Centre to extend the Ice Rink. Will you be selling other areas? the Council to inform the Local Plan review and does not consider sale of sites. Please also refer to section 9.2 We don’t want a reduction of green belt within the area Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.11

3. RESPONSES FROM STATUTORY STAKEHOLDERS

3.1 Consultation notifications were also sent to identified statutory stakeholders in the area including Authority, NHS, Environment Agency, Natural and .

3.2 In total, 28 statutory organisations were consulted by email or via the consultation portal. The Council received 11 formal written responses as shown below:

15

Canal & River Trust Department for Communities and Local Government Environment Agency Response received District Council County Council Response received Greater London Authority Response received Highways England Response received Historic England Response received Homes and Communities Agency Lee Valley Regional Park Response received London Borough of Enfield London Borough of Hackney Response received London Borough of Haringey London Borough of Newham Response received London Borough of Redbridge London Legacy Development Corporation London Local Enterprise Partnership Metropolitan Police Response received National Grid Response received Natural England Network Rail NHS England NHS Property Services Ltd Open Space Department - Epping Forest Thames Water Transport for London Part of GLA response UK Power Networks (Operations) Ltd Sport England Response received

16

3.3 Responses received

Stakeholder No of Consultation Response LBWF response Organisation Comment

GLA 1 Principle of vision is welcomed. Support noted (includes TfL)

2 Efficient use of land into more intense forms of development is welcomed. Support noted 3 Information on page 36 is clearly laid out and welcomed Support noted 4 Welcome that vision is seeking to protect and enhance MOL and improve access Comment noted. Please refer to sections 9.4 and 9.11 to it. Note this in accordance with London Plan policy 7.17.

5 Welcome that the vision will protect employment land uses. Support noted 6 Welcome that vision will seek to intensify employment land uses within SIL in Support noted line with Local Plan policy. Positive comment specifically noted for the Lea Bridge area. 7 Improvement to SIL environment is welcomed. Support noted 8 Welcome a new centre focussing on the Lea Bridge rail station and the Lea Support noted Bridge Road bus corridor as it aims to make more efficient use of land with good public transport access. 9 In principle welcome the aim of creating a more sensitive urban frontage to the Support noted Lee Valley Regional Park and River . 10 Proposal to deliver new development in the Church Road area is welcomed. Support noted 11 The proposal to enhance the urban and natural environment in the Church Road Support noted area is welcomed. 12 Improving links to the sports facilities at Ive Farm is welcomed. Support noted 13 Improvements to are welcomed. Support noted 14 The proposed intensification of land uses at Leyton is welcomed, particularly a Support noted large area of single storey retail uses and car park adjacent to the Leyton Underground station, which could support more intense development.

17

15 Retention and enhancement of is supported, as it Support noted important strategic facility for London. 16 Decking over the A12 is generally supported. Support noted 17 Eurostar - Strategic facility, challenging to relocate and would need to be re- Comment noted. Vision amended to show retention of provided. Eurostar site. 18 Safeguard transport infrastructure e.g.: bus garages. Comment noted. Vision text amended to show bus garage safeguarded. 19 Planning status of Vision not clear until p. 39. Move to Intro section. Comment noted. Text strengthened in Executive Summary.

20 Scale of infrastructure delivery likely to be challenging. Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.5 21 p.19 states scale of development at 6 storeys. Useful to be clear that taller forms Comment noted. Text amended to show that taller of development will be considered at locations close to good public transport, buildings could be considered in certain locations. Please e.g.: Lea Bridge and Leyton stations. refer to section 9.2 22 Development on MOL should be resisted with only appropriate uses or Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.11 redevelopment of existing built footprints allowed. 23 Supportive on SIL intensification. Support noted 24 Significant areas of land within flood zones 2 and 3a. Little comment given on Comment noted. Added additional text to Vision re: this in Vision text. Consideration needs to be given to location, design and flooding issues and mitigation measures. Please refer to mitigation measures to address flood risk as well as methods of ensuring that the section 9.12 drainage proposals from new development reduce flood risks. 25 New Lea Bridge centre welcomed, but more emphasis could be given on p. 25 Comment noted. Added additional text to Vision. and 31 to maximising investment of LB station and opportunities it brings. 26 MOL development proposals generally not permitted. Acknowledged that Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.11 already significant amount of development within the section of MOL that is proposed for development, so some limited development may be able to be justified. 27 Principle of opening up Lea Valley welcomed. Practical and cost challenges of Support and comment noted delivering a significant number of bridges should not be under estimated. 28 River Lee Flood Relief Channel is challenging and potentially risky environment Comment noted and careful consideration needed to how these challenges can be overcome. E.g. at QEOP.

18

29 Church Road proposals welcomed. Dagenham Brook known to have poor water Noted and will be taken forward as part of the Local Plan quality and prone in places to flooding, therefore improvements to river corridor review. welcomed. 30 Leyton intensification proposals welcomed including at Leyton Mills. This area Support noted could support a much more intense form of development. 31 Retention and enhancement of New Spitalfields market supported as a strategic Support noted facility for London. 32 Decking over the A12 supported but practical and cost implications should not be Support and comment noted underestimated. 33 bus depot should be safeguarded - hydrogen fuelling station should Wording has been added to the Vision about safeguarding be preserved to support a sustainable bus network in future. existing public transport infrastructure e.g.: bus garages.

34 Various comments on Infrastructure Plan. Comments noted. An Infrastructure Plan is being produced as part of the Local Plan review. Please refer to section 9.5 Highways 35 The only concern would be any impact on the M11. As there is no impact, Comment noted England Highways England do not offer any comments on this proposal. LB Hackney 36 Vision proposals welcomed and supported in principle by Hackney. Support noted 37 Welcome opportunities to strengthen cross boundary working. Starting Local Comment noted. Liaise with LB Hackney as part of review Plan and Direction of Travel consultation. Clapton Roundabout and intensify on of Local Plan. previously developed land on Hackney side of the Lea Valley. 38 Of particular interest are improved connections between Lea Bridge and the Comment noted. Liaise with LB Hackney as part of review LVRP including new bridge to deliver growth in a co-ordinated manner. of Local Plan. 39 Look forward to collaborative working with LBWF on waterside frontages, Lee Comment noted. Liaise with LB Hackney as part of review Valley Ice Centre and Thames Water site. of Local Plan. 40 Note need for key infrastructure including replacement suitable waste sites Comment noted. Liaise with LB Hackney as part of review through North London Waste Plan. of Local Plan. Metropolitan 41 Supportive of the vision for the area and the Design Out Crime Team would like Comment noted. Liaise with Metropolitan Police as part of Police to be involved in the design and development of the area. review of Local Plan. 42 Recommend area is designed and developed using practices and principles of Comment noted. Amended wording in Vision stating that Secured by Design. developments should be designed to create a safe and secure environment. LB Newham 43 Generally supportive of the Vision including delivery of new homes and Support noted. Liaise with LB Newham as part of review of economic growth. Local Plan.

19

44 Satisfied that at present, as a whole, the Vision proposals do not present cross Comment noted boundary strategic issues. Lee Valley 45 Identification of the existing site of the ice centre as a new 'twin pad' is Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.11 Regional consistent with the LVRPA statutory purpose. State that the existing facility Park cannot meet current levels of demand/needs replacing/end of economic life. Authority Considers there is an MOL exceptions case for the redevelopment 46 Of more significance is release of 5 acres of land (out of 500 acres in this part of Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.11 the LVRP) at Waterworks Centre for residential development. Although contrary to adopted policy, 60% of identified site is car park and existing building. LVRPA broadly supports these proposals but intends more detailed work to restrict the actual land used for residential development to the current "built footprint" of the building and surrounding car park. 47 Suggests that the development of the Waterworks site could make an 'enabling' Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.11 case for the development of twin pad ice rink 48 Welcomes opportunity to work with LBWF and other stakeholders on schemes to Comment noted. Further engagement will be undertaken open up the LVRP. Invest in parkland landscape improvements. Whole area with statutory stakeholders as part of the Local Plan could provide better visitor offer. review.

49 Work would have to be completed by LVRPA consultancy team to articulate Comment noted benefits in advance of any planning applications. 50 Proposals for Thames Water site unclear but an opportunity for regeneration. Comments noted. Please refer to section 9.11 Could allow delivery of LVRPA adopted proposals for this site (public access, safeguard Black Path route, creation of broad landscape corridor). Open up access to east side of River Lee. 51 LVRPA supports strategic proposals in Leyton e.g.: new Ruckholt Road station Support noted and pedestrian bridge. 52 LVRPA to develop a masterplan for Hockey and Tennis Centre at QEOP. Comment noted Historic 53 NPPF core principle is conservation of heritage assets. Requirement for Local Comment noted England Planning Authority’s to set out a positive strategy for conservation and enjoyment of the historic environment. 54 Not clear in the Vision the extent of analysis or evidence underpinning the Comment noted. Vision work including a review of document. Be helpful to demonstrate the extent of evidence base informing the heritage assets. Further assessment work will form part of Vision. the Local Plan review. Please refer to section 9.8

20

55 Vision would benefit from greater detailed analysis of existing townscape, Comments noted. Detailed analysis of existing townscape, sensitive views, setting of key historic elements of townscape and landscapes to views and heritage assets will be undertaken as part of the inform "good growth", enhance area character, strengthen local economy and Local Plan review. Please refer to section 9.8 create permeable attractive spaces. 56 Vision identifies heritage assets and opportunities to improve character, Comment noted and will be undertaken as part of the accessibility and legibility. Encourage Council to explore how new development Local Plan review. Please refer to section 9.8 can integrate with existing character. Suggest develop local typologies and design guides. 57 Note of caution relating to illustrations on p. 29 (layering diagrams) and 39 (early Comment noted opportunity LB station sites). Fail to provide convincing vision for good growth or an informed response to context. Images are at odds with the more convincing contextual artists impressions. 58 Pleased to note identification of opportunities to enhance heritage assets and Comment noted and will be undertaken as part of the local high streets. Recommend Council seek opportunities to ensure Local Plan review. developments deliver wider benefits in coordinated and high quality approach. 59 Area would benefit from more detailed master planning and liaison with Design Comment noted and will be undertaken as part of the Review, UDL etc. Local Plan review.

Sport 60 Occupiers of new development will generate more demand for sporting Comment noted. Infrastructure provision is sought via England provision. Will impact on existing sporting provision and developments should collection of CIL, or where appropriate via S106. This may contribute towards meeting demand generated through provision of onsite include sports facilities if identified as required via the facilities and / or providing additional capacity off site. review of the Local Plan and the Infrastructure Delivery Plan. Please also refer to section 9.5 61 Level of sporting provision should be informed by robust evidence base such as Comment noted. Playing Pitches Strategy already an up to date Sports Facilities Strategy or Playing Pitch Strategy. commissioned and being undertaken. 62 Sport England & Public Health England have produced Active Design Guidance. Comment noted. 63 Welcome the intention to create walkable places and enhancing areas with open Comment noted and will be undertaken as part of the spaces and connectivity. Encourage incorporation of principles of Active Design. Local Plan review. Environment 64 Support the aims in principle Support noted Agency including Water Board extract 65 Request some suggested environment and environmental infrastructure Comment noted. Additional text included about

21

amendments. environmental opportunities. 66 On p. 19 and p.20 expect to see an additional Environmental Principle and Comment noted. Vision includes amended wording and Environmental Objective. additional objective. 67 Flood risk should be considered at early planning stage. Flood risk in the Lea Comment noted. Amended wording relating to flooding is Valley will increase and needs to be managed to reduce flooding opportunities. included. 68 P. 12 flood risk map unclear on flood zones and doesn’t match current EA Flood Comment noted. Vision mended to update information. Zones. 69 Beneficial for additional map showing Vision area to assist with identification. Comment noted. Map annotated to show Vision area to aid identification. 70 On p. 20 in point 2 add "maximising a reduction in flood risk". Comment noted. Amended wording added. 71 P. 22 map areas in flood zone 2 not addressed in text. New buildings should not Comment noted. Amended wording about flood risk and be placed in areas of flood risk. Existing buildings at high risk of flooding being mitigation in Vision document. replaced should be redesigned to be more flood resilient and smaller footprint. 72 P. 23 include an objective to reduce flood risk from both fluvial and surface Comment noted. Amended wording in Vision document. water risk. 73 P. 24 reference should be made to flood risk and how to be decreased. How Comment noted. Amended high level wording in Vision enhancements will meet the Water Framework Directive actions. document and will be undertaken as part of the Local Plan review. 74 Strongly support opportunities in new development to increase floodplain Comment noted storage. 75 3 projects in 6 year EA investment programme: Dagenham Brook flood Comments noted alleviation scheme; Dagenham Brook replacement flap valve and Leyton tidal flap valve modification. 76 Any changes to river banks will have impacts on EA existing models / thresholds Comment noted and will be undertaken as part of the for forecasting flooding - EA need to be involved. Local Plan review 77 In improving access to LVRP need to balance access for people and wildlife Comment noted and will be considered as part of the Local needs. Plan review 78 Add map showing rivers running through the area and classification of rivers Comment noted. Annotated map to name rivers. under Water Framework Directive. 79 River Lea, Lea Navigation and Dagenham Brook actions needed to improve Comments noted waterbodies classification shown in Water Body summary attached 80 Need further reference to Air Quality and Borough's Air Quality Action Plan. Comment noted. Amended wording in Vision document.

22

81 Vision should refer to Mayor's Air Quality policies on air quality neutral and how Comment noted. Amended wording in Vision document. development is to take account of this. 82 Vision should include a commitment to develop an integrated air quality Comment noted. The Borough is committed to improving strategy. air quality and this will be considered as part of the Local Plan review. Please refer to section 9.1.7 83 Vision should look at an Integrated Water Management Solution for water Comment noted. A Strategic Flood Risk Assessment will be pressures that the area faces. carried out as part of the Local Plan review. Individual schemes have to show how flood risk would be dealt with. Water supply will be assessed as part of the Infrastructure Delivery Plan and Local Plan review. Please refer to section 9.12 84 Concern that permitted waste management sites are affected. Both in terms of Comments noted. The Council are jointly preparing a redevelopment and loss of 150k pa waste handling capacity, plus any remaining North London Waste Plan with partner boroughs which sites could become "bad neighbour" uses to new residential developments. will consider these points. 85 Equivalent sites will need to be identified under London Plan / North London As above Waste Plan. 86 Existence of "source protection zones" in Vision area linked to land Comment noted. Will be considered as part of Local Plan contamination. review and in considering any planning applications. 87 Generally supportive of the sustainable vision for the area Support noted 88 Prior consent is needed from EA for any works or structures within 8 metres of Comments noted designated "main" river. Flood Risk Activity Permits needed. Possible enforcement action for non-compliance. 89 Need to be aware of EA land ownership and need for emergency access to flood Comments noted relief channel. 90 P. 6 point 4 - image appears to show sheet piling - not environmentally sensitive. Comment noted. Image is an artist’s impression showing edging to flood relief channel - not sheet piling. 91 Undertake studies on all waste sites in the Vision area (listed in response) to Comments noted and will be undertaken as part of the identify impact of development on waste management sites, identify any that Local Plan review. need to be closed permanently and identify alternative sites for treatment and waste transfer. 92 Generally supportive of Church Road proposals. Need to work closely with EA on Support noted Dagenham Brook. 93 Generally supportive of the vision for Leyton and would be happy to work with Comment noted the Council further on the vision, as they may have information on the culverts 23

within the vision area.

Essex County 94 No comments to make. Noted Council National Grid 95 National Grid has no comments and is happy to provide advice and guidance to Noted the Council concerning its network.

24

4. 3rd PARTY REPRESENTATIONS & RESPONSES

4.1 Additionally, the Council received 17 responses from the following organisations:

 Strutt Parker for RVL / GBN Waste site  Pilbrow & Partners on behalf of Restoration London Group  Vibrant Partnerships  Carter Jonas on behalf of National Grid Property Holdings (NGPH)  Barton Willmore on behalf of Aviva  Education Funding Authority (EFA)  Markhouse Corner & Lea Bridge Residents Association  User Group (HMUG)  Rapleys on behalf of Capital Industrial One BV  BPTW Partnership on behalf of Lindhill Properties  London Wildlife Trust  Individual Representation  Leyton Orient Trust  Eurostar  London Parks and Gardens Trust  Thames21

25

4.2 Consultation Responses Received

3rd Party No of Consultation Response LBWF Response Comment

Strutt Parker for RVL / 1 Master plan needed for Church Road area. Comment noted. Site briefs for key sites and areas GBN Waste site will be undertaken as part of the Local Plan review. 2 Support Vision for a mixed -use neighbourhood. Support noted 3 Vision should be explicit that the 2,500 new homes Housing Zone Comment noted. Text makes clear the target to statement is a minimum figure. provide "at least 2,500 new homes” as part of the GLA Housing Zone. No amendment needed. 4 Vision should be explicit that the 400 new homes in Church Road area is a Comment noted minimum figure. 5 Quoting London wide Industrial Land Supply Assessment (2015) states Comment noted–but disputed. LBWF studies show that LBWF to release 7 hectares of industrial land in the borough. need for increase in employment land and floor space - not release of floor space. Further work will be undertaken as part of the Local Plan review. 6 Vision should not include a reference to specific figure for retained / new Comment noted. Further work will be undertaken as employment provision as a floor space figure. Should be based on part of the Local Plan review. The Employment Land quantum and quality of jobs compatible with neighbouring uses. Study (2016) refers to an employment floor space figure and this is considered normal practice. Floor space requirements are based on estimates of Full Time Equivalent (FTE) employment levels given a ‘workspace’ is planned on how many people will occupy it at one time. Please also refer to section 9.9

7 Suggest that Vision enable consideration of provision of employment on Comment noted but this would be beyond the remit other sites in Vision area beyond the Church Road neighbourhood to of the current Vision and will be considered on a case offset loss of employment in a mixed use allocation. Consider on a case by case basis in the review of the Local Plan. by case basis. 8 States that an alternative, larger site for waste facilities has been Comment noted. GBN site is currently an allocated identified. Meaning no loss in facilities or jobs and provide future proofing waste site in the North London Waste Plan. If this as space to expand use were to be relocated a strategy would have to be agreed for re-providing this use.

26

9 Provision of higher density at upper levels of London Plan density matrix Comment noted. Further work will be undertaken as to optimise site use. Welcome clarity in Vision that higher density part of the Local Plan review. Please also refer to development is acceptable. sections 9.2 and 9.3

10 Considers potential for the PTAL rating to be enhanced by public transport Comment noted. Further work will be undertaken as improvements, suggesting that this could lead to a higher density as per part of the Local Plan review. The Vision has been the London Plan density matrix produced based on current TfL PTAL ratings. Any PTAL ratings improvement will be considered as and when development comes forward in accordance with London Plan policy.

11 Medium scale up to 7 storeys would be appropriate for the majority of Further work will be undertaken as part of the Local the site punctuated by taller buildings for focal point. Plan review. Please also refer to section 9.2 12 Aspiration for car free development is unrealistic particular for family Comment noted. Further work will be undertaken as housing. Vision should retain flexibility on this point and reflect parking part of the Local Plan review. The aspiration is for standards in London Plan. car free development. The appropriate level of car parking provision would be considered at planning application stage on a site by site basis. Please also refer to sections 9.1.2 and 9.1.6

13 Vision document should acknowledge that existing movements related to As above a site should be considered as baseline position with a net reduction of vehicle movements being the objective. 14 Vision should not be prescriptive on level of employment space re- Comment noted provision which should be on no net loss basis in terms of job numbers. 15 Opening up of space adjacent to Dagenham Brook and provision of links Comment noted to Jubilee Park, improving permeability/connections/linkages is in accord with the aspirations for development at Estate Way Pilbrow & Partners on 16 Essential that Vision is embedded in emerging planning policy framework. Comment noted. Further work will be undertaken as behalf of Restoration part of the Local Plan review. London Group 17 Early confirmation of timescales for Local Plan review and any relevant Comment noted. The Council confirmed timescales SPG needed. for the delivery of the Local Plan review via the Local Development Scheme which was taken to Cabinet in March 2017. The review of the Local Plan will also consider whether any SDGs will be required.

27

18 Notes broad support for the Council's vision and renewal aspirations Support noted particularly for the Lea Bridge area 19 Support and encourage the mixed use approach to regeneration as Support noted advocated by the masterplan 20 Change from Industrial Land to "retail, employment and residential use" Comment noted and will be considered as part of the against planning policy and would need to be tested. Local Plan review. 21 Advocate further extension of residential use along Rigg Approach river Comment noted. Further work will be undertaken as frontage. part of the Local Plan review. 22 Support the principle of intensifying the use of the site through the Comment noted increase of both height and density 23 Need further study into Building Heights and density potential and Comment noted. Further work will be undertaken to townscape opportunity. consider design options as part of the Local Plan review design evidence base work, which will include consideration of density and townscape opportunities. Please also refer to sections 9.2 and 9.8 24 Advocate further study into connectivity and movement to ensure that 5 Comment noted. This will be considered as part of proposed new bridges are ideally placed. the Local Plan review, Infrastructure Delivery Plan, further work on site briefs and individual planning applications. 25 Advocate spatial modelling to determine implications for pedestrian Comment noted footfall, activation of key routes and benefits of town centre renewal from High Street orientated developments. 26 Develop broad place based vision for each of the 3 areas drawing on Comment noted. The Vision has considered the heritage assets to create new neighbourhood feel. existing character and context of the area, including heritage assets. Further work will be undertaken as part of the Local Plan review. 27 Agree with the merits of taking a long term and comprehensive approach Support noted 28 Vision needs to contain inherent flexibility to allow for site specific Comment noted. Further work will be undertaken as proposals without undue constraint or overly prescriptive design part of the Local Plan review. guidance. Vibrant Partnerships 29 Vision is ambitious but realistic. Will create vibrant place and critical mass Support noted for business investment.

28

30 Consider the Vision has challenging concepts. Discusses the management Comments noted of releasing areas for development to enhance leisure offer. 31 Wants continued investment in landscape management; future protection Comments noted. The Council would support this. of sensitive areas and nature reserves. 32 Important that existing businesses and leisure opportunities continue to Comments noted. Further engagement will be be considered and promoted during development phases. undertaken with local stakeholders, communities and businesses as part of the Local Plan review. 33 Main areas Vibrant Partnership has interest in are Lea Bridge and Leyton. Comment noted 34 Considers Lea Bridge Road is a gateway to the nature reserves and open Comments noted. Please refer to sections 9.4 ad 9.7 space and that the importance of this should not be underplayed. Consider connections along waterways and through the marsh lands offer opportunity for passive recreation. 35 Considers the Riding Centre could act as a significant catalyst and gateway Comment noted to Leyton Marshes and beyond to 36 Request addition of Riding Centre to list of 6 LVRPA (assets seen as Comment noted. The Vision doesn’t suggest any complementary components of new destination). changes to the Riding Centre. The approach suggested should form part of a Park Management Plan by LVRPA. 37 Notes the Riding Centres employment and training opportunities. Comment noted 38 Residential accommodation needed at Riding Centre because of 24 hour Comment noted. A planning application would be nature of livestock on site. required, along with a justification of Very Special Circumstances. 39 Include reference in Vision to modest development within curtilage of A planning application would be required, along with Riding Centre for café, visitor centre etc. and frontage landscaping to a justification of Very Special Circumstances. A wider create outdoor based leisure hub. Park Development Plan by LVRPA should consider visitor facilities. 40 Ice rink will generate more jobs, greater leisure use of the site, providing a Comment noted regional and national draw to the area. 41 Should include ancillary facilities within any Ice Centre redevelopment for Comment noted. Would form part of a planning café. application proposal and too detailed to form part of Vision. 42 Waterworks centre site could be an attractive sensitive mixed density Please refer to section 9.11 development. Retain path network across the site.

29

43 Any development should be well screened from road frontages and not Comment noted. Planning applications are impact larger open space or nature reserve. Need to establish criteria for considered on their own merits applying the policies development which doesn't set a precedent. within the Local Plan. 44 Consider release of land in MOL to be modest Comment noted 45 Financial sums from Waterworks site will be reinvested in the Ice Centre Comment noted. This is a matter for the LVRPA but also Riding Centre, public realm and landscaping. financial planning. 46 Considers logical boundaries for the site to be the physical restrictions Comments noted bordering the site and development, and proposes landscaping and enhanced pathways 47 Support the area within the main nature reserve to be protected. Comment noted 48 Suggest modest and minor enhancements to paths and access bridge to Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.7 Hackney Marshes. 49 Lee Valley Hockey and Tennis Centre just outside Vision area: plans for Comment noted but outside Vision area changes from Vibrant Partnerships including expanding leisure offer and potential overnight accommodation. 50 Leyton proposals welcomed - including new rail station at Ruckholt Road, Support noted expanded Spitalfields market and improved connectivity next to bus depot. Specifically supports the new rail station at Ruckholt Road to enhance access to the Lea Valley Hockey and Tennis Centre Carter Jonas on behalf of 51 Gas Holders 2.72 ha site is contaminated Comment noted National Grid Property 52 The site is identified by NGPH as a site that is now available for Comment noted Holdings (NGPH) development, subject to the removal of the existing gas holders. 53 The land is likely to be contaminated and will require remediation to Comment noted, the viability constraints will be make it suitable for future use. State that this means there are viability considered as part of any submitted pre- issues and these are unique to the site. application/planning application for the site. 54 Committed to delivering housing, fully support the residential-led Comments noted development designation in the Vision. Residential development is likely to provide financial return required to regenerate the site. Supports the requirement for 1,200 homes in Lea Bridge and 400 homes in Church Road. 55 Wants clarity on how the Vision fits into the wider review of the Local Comment noted. The Vision will inform the planned Plan. Local Plan review.

30

56 Concern how site is shown on several diagrams: falls between Lea Bridge Comment noted. Clarified on Vision diagrams. and Church Road areas. Provide definitive boundaries between these 2 areas with better delineation on images on p. 28, 30 and 32. 57 Supports the site providing a new frontage to Leyton Jubilee Park. Comment noted Consider that this will provide a good backdrop to the residential development. 58 Strongly object to eastern side of site being shown as community garden Comment noted. Suggestion for this site amended in and allotments. Cost of remediation will outweigh the financial return if Vision. promoted as green space. 59 Use brownfield land efficiently and improve existing adjacent green edges Comment noted. Suggested community garden has rather than use of gas holder site itself for green space. been removed. 60 Encourage direct interaction with landowners and future developers as Comment noted. This will be undertaken as part of part of the delivery mechanisms. Local Plan review stakeholder engagement. 61 Vision needs to provide clarity around extent of public realm and social Comments noted. Detail on capital funding for and physical infrastructure investments and the commitment from the infrastructure will be provided in the Infrastructure public sector to facilitate delivery. Delivery Plan, as part of the Local Plan review, briefs and planning applications 62 Viability is the main consideration when reviewing prospects for gas Comment noted, the viability constraints will be holder sites regeneration. Need close engagement to ensure promotes considered as part of any submitted pre- sustainable development that is deliverable on the landholding. application/planning application for the site. Barton Willmore on 63 Fully support objective and Vision for Leyton and that Vision recognises Support noted behalf of Aviva that many of the current land uses within Leyton are income generating. 64 Remove references to exact land uses, floor space quantum, density and Comment noted. The Vision looks at potential heights of development in locations and remain flexible. change in the area and further work will be undertaken as part of the Local Plan review.

65 Consider Leyton Mills site is an intrinsically sustainable brownfield Comment noted. The Vision looks at what could be location and therefore maximum use of it should be facilitated rather achieved potential change in the area and further than seeking to place limitations which it considers not to have been work will be undertaken as part of the Local Plan tested at this site. review. 66 Vision should ensure that it presents an appropriate balance of providing an incentive for landowners and developers to realise the Vision. Comment noted 67 Vision proposals need to be grounded in principles of economic viability, Comment noted. Whole Local Plan viability will be desirability, deliverability and phase-ability. Ensure that Vision's undertaken as part of the Local Plan review in line

31

aspirations are both attractive and commercially viable. with the NPPF.

68 Vision should make greater reference to importance of landowner in Comment noted. Further work will be undertaken as assisting the Council in delivery rather than on other delivery vehicles part of the Local Plan review. such as Compulsory Purchase Orders. Education Funding 69 EFA welcomes opportunity to contribute to development of planning Comments noted Authority (EFA) policy at the local level and supports the principle of producing a Vision document to guide appropriate development. 70 EFA encourages LBWF to safeguard land for new schools and future Comment noted. The Vision considers areas for expansion of new schools as required by the NPPF and ensure that primary school provision. Further work will be education contributions made by developers are sufficient to cover costs undertaken as part of the Local Plan review. of increase in demand generated by development. 71 EFA supports the principle of producing the Vision to help guide Support noted appropriate development in this area of change ahead of Local Plan review. 72 EFA does not consider that the Vision acknowledges its ownership of the Comments noted. A planning application has been Thames Water Depot site, its intention to bring forward two schools on submitted on this site and will be considered on its the site and its role in facilitating school development and the imminent merits as the former Thames Water Depot site is submission of a planning application for a new secondary and primary designated MOL and will need to demonstrate very school. special circumstances. Please refer to section 9.11

73 EFA states that Thames Water depot site is the only realistic prospect of Comments noted. Please refer to section 9.11 bringing forward a secondary school to meet existing and future demand. Disappointing that Council continues to disregard the EFA proposals. 74 Inclusion of a primary school at the Thames Water depot site helps to Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.11 address capacity of primary places and represents a sensible use of land and public investment. 75 The Council is encouraged to consider the delivery implications of Comment noted. The Vision identifies sites for disregarding the proposal for two committed and funded schools when additional primary school provision. Delivery and there are no apparent alternative options. funding of proposals for schools will be set out in the Council's Infrastructure Delivery Plan, being prepared as part of the Local Plan review. The EFA will be consulted about proposals and delivery as the Local Plan review progresses.

32

76 The Vision identifies the need for new community facilities and the Comments noted. Further work will be undertaken as proposed EFA schools would be valuable community resources including part of the Local Plan review. outside of school hours. 77 EFA supports the principle of the Enjoy Waltham Forest scheme and as a Comments noted land owner able to play a part in delivery thorough discussion of its proposals for the site. 78 EFA has made the Council aware of site constraints on the site and these Comments noted. Vision amended to reflect the site have not been acknowledged in the Vision or illustrative designs. constraints (eg: tunnel). 79 The Vision identifies the site as an area with "opportunity for change" and Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.11 as a "regeneration opportunity". The Council has suggested in discussions that this designation is flexible - the EFA strongly puts forward the case that the land should be used to deliver schools. The imminent planning application will set out why this is both necessary in education terms and acceptable in planning terms. 80 The EFA does not consider that the 3 sites identified in the Vision for Comments noted. The Vision explores what could be additional school provision are deliverable; Bywaters not before 2024-25 achieved in the area. Further work will be academic year; Leyton Mills is privately owned and existing retail with no undertaken as part of the Local Plan review. timescale for development and Barncroft extension only deliver limited number of primary places due to site constraints. 81 EFA requests that a bullet point is added to the Lea Bridge column on Comment noted. The Council will not be updating p.36: New secondary and primary school on the former Thames Water this part of the Vision, as the site is located on MOL. Depot site. Please refer to section 9.11

82 EFA view is that the Vision does not provide any viable primary school Comments noted. The Vision explores what could be sites. It is concerned that no secondary school sites have been identified achieved in the area. Further work will be in the Vision. undertaken as part of the Local Plan review. 83 EFA not support consultation version of the Vision on the basis of Comments noted. Please refer to section 9.11 insufficient acknowledgement of necessary school infrastructure provision in WF or EFAs ownership of Thames Water Depot site and its proposals for the site. 84 In line with the Duty to Cooperate and LBWF's Vision commitment to Comment noted. The Council will carry it out its legal build strong partnerships please add EFA to list of infrastructure providers requirement in relation to the Duty-to-cooperate, as and land owners which the Council consults and engages with for this and stated in the Localism Act 2011, as part of the Local other Local Plan documents. Plan review. As the EFA is a public body they will be included in any Duty-to-cooperate discussions. 33

85 Would aid delivery of school infrastructure if the EFA was consulted when Comment noted. Council has undertaken to do this. Council next reviews its infrastructure requirements and any update to Further work will be undertaken as part of the Local the Infrastructure Delivery Plan. Plan review. Markhouse Corner & Lea 86 Shopfront improvements on all four sides of Markhouse Corner and along Comment noted. Further work will be undertaken as Bridge Residents Lea Bridge Road. part of the Local Plan review. Please refer to section Association 9.6 87 Include areas outside of the Vision boundary e.g.: Heybridge Way so as to Comment noted. Further work will be undertaken as address needs of existing residents. part of the Local Plan review and areas adjacent to the Vision boundary will be considered in a holistic way. 88 Use of old cinema building at Markhouse Corner for more community use. Comment noted 89 Improved pedestrian and cycle crossing needed at both Lea Bridge / Argall Comment noted. Improvements to junctions Way and Markhouse / Lea Bridge Road. planned as part of Enjoy Waltham Forest project. Please refer to section 9.1.3 90 More health facilities needed including dentists and need for a nursery in Comments noted. Further work will be undertaken as the area. part of the Local Plan review. 91 Better transport links needed e.g.: more trains per hour from Lea Bridge Comments noted. The council is lobbying for station, connection to Liverpool Street and a bus along Orient Way to transport improvements in this area. Please refer to Leyton Mills and Stratford International. section 9.1.5 92 Improvements to traffic layout especially at Orient Way Junction for Comment noted. Improvements planned as part of pedestrians. Enjoy Waltham Forest project. Please refer to section 9.1.3 93 Need for more speed cameras. Comment noted. Speed cameras are managed by TfL (along with the borough) and are enforced by the Police.

94 Need better access to Marshes - more crossings (and accessible crossings) Comments noted. Further work will be undertaken as over the railway, River Lea and Dagenham Brook, including improvements part of the Local Plan review. Please refer to sections to Marsh Lane Footbridge. 9.4 and 9.7 95 Re-open the Antelope pub and the Greyhound and shut Bet Fred at Comments noted but these sites are in private Markhouse Corner. ownership. Please refer to section 9.10 96 No housing development on the Waterworks site - keep as open space. Comment noted Please refer to section 9.11 Use for cycle hub or community facility.

34

97 Most Resident Association members opposed to development on Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.11 Waterworks or Thames Water site. 98 If housing built on Waterworks, have café and community space on Comment noted. Further work will be undertaken as ground floor and the area to retain full public access. part of the Local Plan review. 99 Should be community facility investment by any big developer. Comment noted 100 Should be entertainment and social opportunities in the area. Comment noted. Consideration of existing social assets and exploring entertainment opportunities in the area will form part of the review of the Local Plan. 101 Keep Leyton Football Club site as a sports field - potentially as a 5 a side Comment noted. Council has commissioned a Playing football business. Pitches Strategy to ascertain need in the area. Further work will be undertaken as part of the Local Plan review. 102 Planting of trees, shrubs and hanging baskets needed. Use Thames Water Comments noted. Landscaping is considered as part site as a garden centre or plant nursery. of any planning application. Hackney Marshes User 103 Welcome great many aspects of the Vision including improving walking Support noted Group (HMUG) and cycle access and improvements to public transport including new station at Ruckholt Road. 104 Object to loss of MOL at Waterworks. Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.11 105 Resistance to a school at the Thames Water site and welcome Councils Comment noted resistance. 106 Would appear that Housing is not needed on this site - LBWF officer Comment noted. Housing need and the evidence stated not arguing for need to release MOL to meet housing need. base will be considered as part of the Local Plan review in line with the NPPF. Please also refer to section 9.11

107 Would like to see Walthamstow, Leyton and Hackney marshes forming a Comment noted. Improvements to routes across the more continuous space and not being separated by urbanisation along Lea Valley Regional Park are part of the Vision. Lea Bridge Road. Further work will be undertaken as part of the Local Plan review. 108 Consider that there is a great ecological and landscape difference Comment noted. Would be evaluated if a planning between the current car park /low-profile public building and residential application is submitted. led development 109 Consider what is on the Waterworks site is currently a facility within the Comment noted 35

Lea Valley Park 110 LVRPA should manage the Waterworks Centre or return it to open space. Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.11 Rapleys on behalf of 111 Support Vision's approach to improve employment floor space and Support noted Capital Industrial One BV improve quantum and quality to meet market demand and occupier requirements in relation to Leyton Industrial Village, Argall Avenue. 112 Support upgrade of existing stock and agree vital to growth of the Support noted employment area, specifically in relation to Argall Avenue. 113 Emphasise retention of good access to Argall Avenue is critical. Request Comments noted. Junction improvements at Argall that Vision makes clear that proposed growth and future development of Way and Lea Bridge Road planned as part of Enjoy the Lea Bridge area should ensure retention of access to Argall Avenue Waltham Forest works. Please also refer to section industrial area. 9.7 114 Fairways Business Park on Lammas Road located within "Opportunities for Comments noted. The site is designated SIL and Change" and identified for employment use. Designated SIL and located therefore protected industrial employment land. adjacent to / short walk from Lea Bridge station. Waterworks site adjacent shown as residential. Consider as opportunity to integrate with mixed use context. 115 Limiting site to employment would not maximise site's full potential to Comments noted. Designated SIL and therefore contribute to the development needs of the Borough. Has significant protected industrial employment land. Please also potential for employment and residential mixed use". Could create new refer to section 9.9 "mixed use centre". 116 Layering shown in Vision and examples of successful mixed use schemes. Comment noted 117 Definition of employment too narrow and could prevent appropriate Comments noted. Land Use definitions have been types of employment generating uses as part of mixed developments. deleted from Vision. Don't limit to B classes only, should be defined as Economic Development like NPPF with wider range of employment generating uses. 118 Review existing SIL land as part of Local Plan review to facilitate growth in Comments noted. An Employment Land Review has terms of residential and economic development on mixed use basis. been undertaken by GVA in 2016. The findings of the review will be considered as part of the evidence base of the Local Plan review. 119 Future planning policy should be sufficiently flexible and allocate land for development based on up to date evidence base. Comment noted

36

120 Vision will have limited weight in planning terms, individual developments Comments noted. Infrastructure needs will be taken will contribute to general infrastructure delivery. Suggest approach to forward through an Infrastructure Delivery Plan as contributions and pooling is considered fully once an Infrastructure part of the Local Plan review. Delivery Plan is prepared to ensure sites identified for redevelopment are viable and deliverable. 121 All contributions must conform to the Community Infrastructure Levy Comment noted (CIL) tests, particularly regulation 122. 122 Vision identifies decentralised energy potential. Appears to be no Comment noted. Initial work on potential for de- feasibility and delivery mechanisms considered including funding and centralised energy has been undertaken with the coordinated delivery. Until such work undertaken is inappropriate to GLA. Further work will be undertaken as part of the make this a requirement of new development as could place an onerous Local Plan review. burden on landowners / developers. BPTW Partnership on 123 Agree with Vision to deliver employment intensification, higher density Support noted behalf of Lindhill family homes and virtually car free development. Properties 124 Support mixed use centre at Lea Bridge. Support noted 125 Agree that building heights will need to rise, but limits placed on heights Comment noted. Further work will be undertaken as would only serve to significantly restrict the growth of the local centre. part of the Local Plan review. Please also refer to section 9.2 126 Limiting greatest heights to NE of Lea Bridge Station will be an inefficient Comments noted. Further work will be undertaken as use of land and severely limit development achievable. Similar heights part of the Local Plan review. Please also refer to and densities should be achievable on both sides of the railway, section 9.2 specifically in relation to residential / employment uses. 127 Supports Vision's recognition of the crucial role of creative industries in Support noted the Lea Bridge area. 128 Agree that it is appropriate to focus on developing retail, office and Comment noted community uses to stabilise the functionality of the Lea Bridge area. 129 Removal of SIL designation on 91 Lea Bridge Road (Ladycars site) Comments noted. The Vision cannot de-designate contradicts adopted policy. Support removal of this site from SIL and as a SIL. Further work will be undertaken as part of the prime site would benefit from designation that allows mixed use to Local Plan review. enable retail and commercial uses at ground floor with residential above. 130 Vision should state mixed use development to enable retail and Comments noted. Further work will be undertaken as commercial uses at ground floor with residential above and explicitly part of the Local Plan review. detail how the Council aims to deliver mixed use development on all designated SIL sites with frontage on Lea Bridge Road.

37

131 Be appropriate to deliver more intensive development around Lea Bridge Comment noted. Further work will be undertaken as Station. part of the Local Plan review. 132 Existing land ownerships not been taken into consideration. Boundary Comment noted. The Vision seeks to explore what plan provided. could be achieved in the area. Further work will be undertaken as part of the Local Plan review. 133 Suggest more efficient use of building footprints allowing greater height, Comment noted. Further work will be undertaken as density and more active frontages onto Lea Bridge Road. 2 sketches part of the Local Plan review. provided. Update illustrative block structure to better reflect scale of development needed to create vibrant new local centre. London Wildlife Trust 134 Welcomes cohesive and sustainable vision. Support noted 135 Welcomes the explicit reference to the 'Green Spine' of the Lea Valley. Support noted 136 Vision underplays significant ecological assets - no mention of nature, Comments noted. Amended text, diagrams and plans Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation or ecology. The Lea Valley is included. Site of Metropolitan Importance for Nature Conservation (SMI) - its integrity is vital to sustain this feature. 137 Recommend that developments should aim to ensure that these As above, amended wording has been included in ecological assets are not unduly lost or damaged and if possible enhanced Vision through sensitive design and sympathetic development. 138 Estimate 5.4 ha of current amenity space will be lost plus 5.8 ha of Comment noted. Planning permission has been naturalised open space including Lea Bridge Road bankside vegetation granted for new sports facilities at Ive Farm which and MOL at Ive Farm. accord with MOL designation. 139 Estimate that amount of amenity greenspace to be created or enhanced Comment noted could be similar to that being lost, including east of Thames Water site. 140 Expect open space proposals to make specific reference to being designed Comment noted. Vision text has been amended. with nature in mind/ and or include more naturalised habitats. Further work will be undertaken as part of the Local Plan review. 141 The vision could be more specific and ambitious in relation to wildlife and Comment noted. Vision text has been amended. people's contact with nature. Further work will be undertaken as part of the Local Plan review. 142 Proposes enhancements along the entire length of the Dagenham Brook Comment noted. Too detailed to be considered as from the former Leyton Waterworks site to the River Lea. part of a high level Vision. 143 Proposes living roofs and biodiversity features in the strategy. Comment noted. Too detailed to be considered as part of a high level Vision.

38

144 Proposes connecting the Waterworks Nature Reserve and Filter Comment noted. Too detailed to be considered as Beds and adjoining areas of greenspace and river network banks into a part of a high level Vision. wider landscape for wildlife and community engagement with nature. 145 Proposes that new landscape could include the following: Comment noted. Too detailed to be considered as - a new visitor facility located at the southern end of the current part of a high level Vision. Waterworks NR site as a focal point and education hub, - wildlife beneficial enhancements within the two core areas; and - better access links to the landscape from the River Lea Path Individual Representation 146 Witherson Watson Mann in a study entitled “Walthamstow Marsh Comment noted. Vision text has been amended to Landscape Design Framework” commissioned by the Lee Valley Regional include reference to explore the potential to re-open Park Authority in 2010 proposed a connecting route which avoided connections from Low Hall into the Lea Valley. conflict with existing infrastructure – railways and flood relief channel. Further work will be undertaken as part of the Local Plan review.

147 Bring the into better use through establishing better Comment noted. This aspiration is part of the Vision connections between different components of the park and further work will be undertaken as part of the Local Plan review. 148 No house building on the Waterworks site, car park or the former pitch Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.11. and putt course 149 Establish a new north-south connection through a bridge linking to Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.7 Hackney Marsh 150 Former Thames Water Depot should be protected as Metropolitan Open Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.11 Land.

151 The apparent status of the Thames Water Depot site as established Comment noted brownfield land requires investigation. Believes the industrial user has been established over the years as a result of unregulated changes of use 152 Vital that waterside areas, including former pumping station buildings and Comment noted. No loss of these facilities is the sluice house are retained for leisure uses proposed as part of the Vision 153 Include an access route along the east bank of the River Lea between Lea Comment noted Bridge Road and Friends Bridge 154 Low Hall's value as an open space is greatly diminished as it is a dead end. Comment noted. Improvements to Low Hall Open Former informal access paths have been blocked by new fences - re- Space are currently being considered. Further work establish connection will be undertaken as part of the Local Plan review.

39

155 Make the Flood Relief Channel a pedestrian route (no doubt permissive Comment noted. This is too detailed for high level and subject to temporary closure at times of high water) as a valuable Vision. north south connection Leyton Orient Trust 156 Welcomes the Vision and the opportunity it presents. Comment noted 157 Agrees that require collective efforts with all stakeholders, good design Comment noted affordable housings, retained/strengthen local employment and accessible open space. 158 Wants investment in public transport especially buses to accommodate Comment noted. Further work will be undertaken as planned increase in population. part of the Local Plan review. Please refer to sections 9.1-9.1.7

159 Consider the Vision presents opportunity to strengthen links with the local Comment noted. community (new and existing). 160 Fundamental that a balance is maintained of recreational, health and Comment noted. living spaces. 161 Considers Leyton Orient Football Club a significant long term stakeholder - Comment noted. economically through employment, 5,000 fan spending money locally but also socially and culturally 162 It is important that Leyton has a vision and sense of direction to challenge Comments noted. Please refer to section 9.5 the key issues of improving health; educational attainment, increasing employability and overall well-being. 163 Leyton Orient Football Club and Leyton Orient Trust are committed to Support noted doing what we can to support and develop programmes and opportunities that improve these challenges. Trust and the Club are committed to the area and the people and communities that live in Leyton. We will support any visions and plans which develop further these communities and give then the best life chances. 164 We are particularly interested in working with partners on ensuring that Comments noted the new facilities in Leyton help address the key challenges and that services and opportunities currently delivered can continue to deliver and develop. Through planning and building SCORE as an important community hub for the past 12 years we are committed to being engaged and co-producing with the Borough like-minded agencies and future partner developers. 165 It is fundamental that the current services and agencies delivering at Comments noted 40

SCORE are fully understood, retained and developed so that the challenges can continue to be met. These organisations need to be included in the planning, shaping and scoping of the plans for SCORE. Their services need to be given the space to increase and flourish and their knowledge and experience of the area fully immersed in the process. The process therefore needs to move quickly from consultation to collaboration and co-production if a sense of place and belonging is to retained and strengthened by all concerned. Eurostar 166 Eurostar employs over 300 people at our Temple Mills Depot at Orient Comments noted Way. As part of our investment in our new fleet of trains, we have made a strategic commitment to the future of the depot, investing over £30m in modernising and adapting our facilities to the next generation of trains. Eurostar has also made a long term commitment to the environment, introducing carbon-neutral journeys for passengers and reducing our business carbon emissions by 28% in five years. We send less than 2% of waste to landfill - including at the depot. As a matter of legacy, a significant proportion of our workforces still commute across London. 167 As the depot goes forward we are keen to see more local opportunities Support noted for housing and community and to draw on a more local workforce. We believe that this would have a positive work/life outcome for staff, help further reduce the environmental impact of travel to work, and more closely integrate this local workplace with the surrounding community. Eurostar therefore supports the strategic intent of the development plans. We also support the development of enhanced public transport options, offering better connectivity for our workforce with a lower environmental footprint. 168 We support the Vision and the opportunity. We need to ensure that our Support noted. Further stakeholder engagement will facilities can integrate in a positive way. Eurostar's business also depends be undertaken as part of the Local Plan review. on access to the depot 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. The depot is required to maintain effective access controls and perimeter controls, for the purposes of counter-terrorist security. With this in mind, we would highlight the following areas for particular engagement: Environment and Access: It is important that we understand and allow for the essential environment consequences of operating the depot (e.g. noise, lighting etc), which Eurostar is committed to managing in a "best practice" way. 41

Safety is an essential consideration. We are also keen to explore with planners the opportunities for softening, or greening the visual impact of the site. 169 New Access Points: The plans refer to the desire to see enhanced access Comments noted. Further stakeholder engagement between the 'town' and 'park' sides of the development. We would be will be undertaken as part of the Local Plan review. keen to understand any future proposals that might require works along or across the site. We have a particular focus on any access, safety, or security considerations and managing in a planned way any potential disruption. 170 Ruckholt Road Station. Eurostar supports the development of enhanced Comments noted. Further stakeholder engagement public transport links. We note that the site for this proposed station is will be undertaken as part of the Local Plan review. alongside the sole point of access to the Temple Mills Depot. We are keen to plan with a particular focus on two aspects: potential disruption or railway possessions during the construction of the station; any subsequent conflicts of track access. These are vital areas of interest to Eurostar, recognising the business-critical requirement for 24/7 access to the depot. London Parks and 171 LPGT broadly supports the identified priorities, guiding principles and Support noted Gardens Trust objectives setting out delivery of new and improved green infrastructure, including improvements to connectivity between the Lea Valley Regional Park, surrounding neighbourhoods and other green and open spaces. 172 LPGT objects to the to the proposals for residential development on the Comments noted. Please refer to section 9.11 site of the landscaped car park, the Waterworks Centre and surrounding green space, which is contrary to this area's designation as Metropolitan Open Land and the statutory purposes of the Lee Valley Regional Park under the Lee Valley Regional Park Act 1966. 173 The open spaces at Lea Bridge are safeguarded to ensure a green lung for Comment noted. This will be taken forward through London. This proposal will, in effect, move the established the park the review of the Local Plan. boundary. Changes to boundaries contained within this strategy should be proposed through the proper process -- as part of the London Plan and the statutory Lee Valley Regional Park Plan (to which these proposals run counter). It is premature to take the proposals through Waltham Forest's Local Plan process before the related upper level plans have been drafted, consulted and adopted.

42

174 LPGT supports in principle Objective 4 for Lea Bridge on Page 6 which Comments noted. Please refer to section 9.11 states "Sensitive waterside development opening up access to green space and waterways with new frontage onto the Lee Valley Regional Park"; however, we cannot see how the proposals will achieve this objective. LPGT objects to the proposals for residential development on the site. Whilst the site of the Waterworks Centre is 'previously developed land', it was previously developed for appropriate uses according to the LVRP Act 1966. Residential development is not an appropriate use. 175 LPGT welcomes the creation of Leyton Jubilee Park through the Support noted integration and redesign of existing open spaces. 176 LPGT supports provision of walking and cycling routes between open Support noted. Please refer to sections 9.1.3 and 9.7 spaces, the Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park and adjacent communities. Thames21 177 The proposals have some very positive elements which fit with the Support noted Thames21 ethos and mantra which is to improve rivers and wetlands in London and connect people to them 178 However there are others which we would strongly oppose due to the Comment noted potential for negative effects on the river and associated landscape. 179 The consultation response gives no areas to comment on the potential Comments noted. The former Thames Water Depot development of the Thames Water site and Ice Rink. These are completely site and ice rink form part of the Lea Bridge area, separate sites to Lea Bridge, Church Rd and Leyton developments and therefore comments were captured in that therefore this consultation cannot be deemed to be fit for purpose for the consultation response section. Please refer to Thames Water and Ice Rink site. If these are to be developed a separate section 9.11 consultation will be needed, where response can be feed in will be needed for these sites. 180 The objective for the Lea Bridge area is mostly sound from a river and Comments noted. Further work will be undertaken water perspective. Sensitive waterside development opening up access to as part of the Local Plan review. green space and waterways with new frontage onto the Lee Valley Regional Park. Of critical important is an ecological buffer zone between the Flood Relief Channel and the development. This should also be a north south route for people but should remain light free as there is a bat roost in the culvert of the flood relief channel further downstream and this will be a key migration corridor for the bats.

43

181 The east west linkages over the flood relief channel are of critical Comments noted. Further work will be undertaken as important to allow people to access the Lea Valley. Consideration needs part of the Local Plan review. to be given to the effects of enhanced accesses by people therefore the development should provide funding to teach people how to behave treat and care for the Lea Valley. 182 These developments should include green SuDs through all developments Comments noted. Further work will be undertaken as particularly including roads. The Lea Valley is known to suffer from part of the Local Plan review. significant urban runoff pollution which results in large fish kills. 183 The regeneration of these areas should include the reinstallation of the Comment noted. Further work will be undertaken as black path. part of the Local Plan review. 184 The objectives for Church Road are mostly sound from a river and water Comments noted. Further work will be undertaken perspective, the detail is of critical importance. The Dagenham Brook is as part of the Local Plan review. currently significantly underutilised, valued and 'developed'. The brook is a very artificial one i.e. it has been dug by man at a time when no consideration was given to its ecology or functionality. As a result it faces a number of problems include limited ecology and large significant flood risk to surrounding populations and properties. Where development is adjacent to the brook the opportunity should be taken to significantly increasing its ecology and amenity value as well as reducing its flood risk. 185 This can be achieved through significantly reducing the gradient of the Comments noted. Further work will be undertaken as banks, creating a walk way along the brook which should flood. This part of the Local Plan review. should create a high quality 'naturalised' river corridor. This can also be undertaken within Leyton Jubilee Park with the Environment Agency. The Environment Agency, Waltham Forest, the developers, local community and third sector organisations need to work closely to ensure that the opportunities are realised and threats prevented.

44

5. OBJECTIONS TO BUILDING ON METROPOLITAN OPEN LAND (MOL)

5.1 Petition

A petition to the London Borough of Waltham Forest requesting removal of plans to rezone part of Metropolitan Open Land for development was created on the 38 degrees website (shown in Annex H).

The petition had gained 4,651 signatories when the petition was presented to the Mayor by the petition author on 31st January when the public consultation on the vision closed. The comments that petitioners entered online were provided by the petition author and are included in the table below.

The Council’s constitution rules require over 4,000 signatories’ to live, work or study in the borough to trigger a debate at Full Council. As only 1,455 of the signatories could be verified as living, working or studying in Waltham Forest the petition was not debated by Full Council.

The petition has however been considered by the Council as part of the consultation process. The table below shows individual comments made by the petitioners in addition to the standard petition text together with the Council’s responses:

Comments Council's Response

So my granddaughter has somewhere natural to walk and play in and Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.11 not a world envisioned by developers Rare green undeveloped area in east London Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.11 I feel strongly about the importance of green open space and also the Comments noted. Please refer to section 9.3 consequences of over development on this area. The proposed and 9.11 development will not even benefit those in most need of housing. The Lower Lea marshes are treasured by many and have given me Comments noted. Please refer to section 9.11 much refuge, pleasure and well-being over the years. It is a short sighted and misguided idea to rezone and build on this unique and sacred spot and we owe it to future generations not to do so. In a busy congested overpopulated city, this expansion of marshes is a Comments noted. Please refer to section 9.11 sanctuary. With growing mental health problems a daily walk over here into the waterworks is a deep therapy and one that allows me to manage being in such a disconnected city, it's a place in nature where I feel connected. Don't destroy this. This land was originally common land is supposed to be looked after Comments noted. Please refer to section 9.11 by the lea valley authority for people of East London in perpetuity. They have to right to sell it off and profit from something they do not own at the expensive of the people that have a right and need for it. The Lea Valley was set up, and is still needed, to provide a green lung Comments noted. Please refer to section 9.11 in our very crowded and polluted city. The need for green space for people to relax, exercise, breath clean air as well as for flora and fauna to thrive is as important now as it was when the Lea Valley Regional Park was first set up. Also the surrounding boroughs have high levels of disadvantage: reducing people's access to green space will deprive them even more. The Waterworks site together with the adjoining Nature Reserve is a Comments noted. Please refer to section 9.11 vital green lung for thousands of local people. It should be kept and improved as open recreational and natural land linking the existing open spaces of the Leyton and Hackney Marshes in the lower Lea 45

Valley.

I am use the lea valley to walk for health and do not think building on Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.11 it will help the local people in anyway. Why are the council even considering building on a flood plain? Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.11 and 9.12 Scandalous loss of public open space Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.11 The erosion of green spaces around our city is detrimental for health Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.4 and wellbeing, and for the environment. and 9.11 Because nature and outdoor space is much more important than an Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.11 ice rink. As a teenager in the 1970's walking on the marshes was vital in Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.11 keeping me sane growing up in a stressful environment Human population has tripled in the last 60 years and that growth is Comments noted. Please refer to section 9.11 already unsustainable in this country and globally. This is the problem which needs to be addressed for future generations, not just catered for. Our government need to be educating people and setting examples on reducing our population rather than just profiting from it. Money grabbing scumbags with no brains, It's marsh land because its Comments noted. Please refer to sections wet and potentially liable to flood. Is far more valuable as public open 9.11 and 9.12 space. Shocking proposals Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.11 The fragile balance between nature, open space and urban Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.11 development needs to be respected not ignored. It is illegal to develop on Metropolitan Open Land (see National Comments noted. Please refer to section 9.11 Planning Policy Framework 9. Protecting Greenbelt Land), without adhering to very strict definitions. In the countryside it is very difficult for a homeowner to add a simple extension if in the Green Belt, in a city with many more demands on green space it should be much harder, yet local authorities have no qualms. I lived by Hackney Marshes for nearly 20 years, and often walked my Comments noted. Please refer to section 9.11 dogs along the canal. It's a peaceful haven in Hackney that needs to be preserved for future generations. Because an ancient piece of London marshland needs to be Comments noted. Please refer to sections 9.3 preserved, and as someone who works professionally in social and 9.11 housing, the cant they will doubtless speak about easing the housing crisis will contribute nothing towards actually doing so. It will make a lot of money for the developers and if there are any section 106 units involved (i.e. at social rent), they will either be too few to make any difference or will have mysteriously disappeared when the final planned construction is built. I abhor the prospect of yet more of London's precious green space Comments noted. Please refer to section 9.11 disappearing under concrete - all the more so as Leyton marshes is designated Metropolitan open land and should be protected from inappropriate development. Building on open green space is only a very short-term gain and a gain Comments noted. Please refer to section 9.11 not for the local community but for the developers. Please see the long-term view. I urge the Council to consider leading the way in being protective of shared open spaces, and to promote themselves as a forward-thinking council who values health and wellbeing, over profit. Open space is precious amenity for now and for future generations. Comments noted. Please refer to section 9.11 Once lost it can never be reclaimed. This is not the way to address 46

housing needs.

Some areas of wild amongst the city dwelling is necessary for our Comments noted. Please refer to section 9.11 shared use of space with nature. This was once protected as common land for all. After the news that London already hit its population limit for this Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.11 year it should be very clear why we need all the green space we can get. Save this rare and beautiful marshland in London. Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.11 Need to stop the erosion of our green spaces in London - so short Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.11 sighted of Councils Such a precious space must be preserved in the interests of all. Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.11 the marshes are important for wildlife, local people and the whole of Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.11 London Waterworks is a place to educate children about nature..would be a Comments noted. Please refer to section 9.11 terrible indictment of our generation if we took this resource away from today's kids. We need to preserve green spaces in cities! Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.11 Cannot afford to lose such spaces. We need more green space in such Comments noted. Please refer to section 9.11 a mega city as London. Where housing is built depends on what type of housing is built and Comments noted. Please refer to sections 9.3 that depends on who you are building for. Local Authorities have no and 9.11 idea whatsoever who this is. It is a National problem and the Government should set policy. We need to keep open spaces. There seems to be an increasing Comments noted. Please refer to section 9.11 tendency to build on everything. We need to maintain our open spaces for our sanity. Life is not all Comments noted. Please refer to section 9.11 about small businesses and housing companies making a mint out of our back yard. If councils are permitted to land grab it will, there will be no local Comments noted. Please refer to section 9.11 open spaces left for Londoners to enjoy. What about the rights and enjoyment of existing residents? Why does everything have to be sacrificed for development? This must be stopped at all costs There are precious few such places and once it's gone it's gone Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.11 forever. This is a wonderful space used by all sorts of people. It is a much Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.11 needed oasis for those living in a highly built up area. This land is not for building on, it is designated Metropolitan Open Comments noted. Please refer to section 9.11 Land - a valuable and vital part of a healthy city, aside from its necessary for wildlife and plant life. This also sets a dangerous precedent for considering future use of the area which obviously needs to be kept as a protected green area within the borough. If it's all about housing people discriminate squatting residential Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.11 buildings There is no need to build on green spaces, taking the air fauna and Comments noted. Please refer to section 9.11 our wildlife from east Londoners. Plenty of Brown field available but it costs more to develop because of the clean-up. Get the profit only minded developers to pay Waltham Forest rather than steal the land from those whose lives are directly affected by it. This sets a dangerous precedent for considering future use of the area Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.11 which obviously needs to be kept as a protected green area within the borough. How can they be mad enough to consider this? Apart from the loss of Comment noted. Please refer to sections 9.11 wildlife habitat and leisure space, it's a bit of a flood risk, yes? Daft! and 9.12 47

These are part of the LUNGS of London Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.11 London's people and wildlife need their green open spaces. Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.11 Metropolitan Open Land should not be developed! Stop taking the world away from nature…they have just as much right Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.11 to be here if not more!!! So much poor air quality, lack of amenities and the council think this Comment noted. Please refer to sections is a good idea?? 9.11, 9.1.7 and 9.5 Because with more high density building around the edge of Leyton Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.11 the need for green spaces increases. I've just moved from the doorstep of the marshes, loved and still love Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.11 them - they can NOT be built upon. We must protect our green spaces before it's too late. Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.11 Unless we curb and restrict invasions into our wilderness it will all Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.11 eventually vanish… Human or non-human, we all love wild green spaces. Some of us live Comments noted. Please refer to section 9.11 in them; some of us use them to get away from where we live. Whatever the reason, we need them for our sanity and well-being. Don't take away what little we have left. We need to keep what little green unspoilt area we have left for Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.11 future generations, especially with the surrounding developments which will house several thousands of people! I walked on this beautiful spot on Monday. We need to preserve this Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.11 area for the wildlife and residents alike. Grew up in Leyton and loved playing golf at the water works, would Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.11 be a shame to see the green spaces disappear. Labour in Waltham Forest are colluding with property developers to Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.11 destroy the Lea Valley and it's communities With growing numbers of residents, London needs its green spaces Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.11 now more than ever. The marshland should be protected. Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.11 Loved this area when I lived in London and treasure every time I go Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.11 back there Yes we need more housing, but not at the cost of our open spaces. Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.11 stop the destruction of our natural resources Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.11 Let's have a healthy, biodiverse future for future generations to enjoy, Comments noted. Please refer to section 9.11 not another destructive scheme. We need breathing space. The Eastside vision plans are full of language of green spaces, Comments noted. Please refer to section 9.11 biodiversity, habitat, climate change, etc., but to propose building housing right next to a nature reserve shows it is empty rhetoric. To re-designate even a small piece of metropolitan open land away sets a dangerous precedent and endangers the rest of our green spaces. The marshes should not be tarnished by housing developments. This Comments noted. Please refer to section 9.11 space is a refuge for people to reconnect with nature; particularly as there is much biodiversity to be celebrated in targeted regions. The marshes will be significantly compromised by these plans. These plans are not good for the wellbeing of current and future generations. Wild nature is important for our physical and mental health and we Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.11 don't have enough of it in London. Keep open spaces for all. Aside from the aesthetic reasons, building housing there is a con - it's Comment noted. Please refer to sections 9.11 in a floodplain! Oh, they could sell it to buyers not familiar with the and 9.12 area, but that wouldn't make it right. Waltham Forest has the most homes at risk of flooding as it is.

48

Absolutely no call for any building in this area when there are pre- Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.11 existing estates in dire need of investment. A proposal like this exists only due to pure greed. The development stands to benefit everyone but people who already exist in the area. When I was a London resident, I loved all the marshes as a source of Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.11 refreshment of the soul. there are plenty of industrial units that should be converted instead Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.11 of creeping further into open space We need green spaces as well as houses Comment noted. Please refer to sections 9.3 and 9.11 We can't destroy every wild place and all wildlife in London for Comments noted. Please refer to section 9.11 endless development - we'll be so much poorer for it. This wildlife habitat is what makes the area so special! We have lost enough already and need to be smarter about how we go about new developments. This is lazy thinking by LBW. We're better than this. Let's have a healthy, biodiverse future for future generations to enjoy, not another lazy, destructive scheme. I walk every single day in the marshes. It's a unique paradise in Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.11 London. We need to protect our green spaces and not build endless flats with no space for community. This place was the only thing that kept me sane in London, it would Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.11 be like removing the city's lungs! Residents need this green space for their mental health Because the marshes keep me sane. I run around this entire area all Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.11 the time. We must preserve these quiet, peaceful spaces for the good of all. They are crucial open area of nature for people living in built up, populated zones. Save the Marsh! Undertakings by public bodies should be honoured; otherwise what is Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.11 the point of civilisation? Leyton and Waltham Forest have gone downhill amazingly quickly Response unrelated to consultation since Labour took control of the council at the last election. These right wing people hating fake lefties must be stopped! No use complaining to our absent MP as his response to new developments 'F#@# off, I don't care' It is an oasis let it be. East London has too many flats already. The Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.11 newts from the Olympic Park were moved to Waterworks for safety when the Olympics were built don't move them on again. No more concrete & tarmac on our green spaces thank you! Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.11 Our common land so far left not built on in such a large city with so Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.11 many people is a priceless resource and must be preserved. Just think, if community-minded people had not fought these battles in the 19th and early 20th century we now wouldn't have such parks as and Springfield!

5.2 Emails objecting to plans to build on Metropolitan Open Land (MOL)

The Council also received 174 emails opposing development on MOL using the standard text below.

Subject: Please scrap your plan to build on Metropolitan Open Land

I am writing to express my opposition to the proposal within your 'Lea Valley Eastside Vision' document to rezone the land around the Waterworks Centre for housing and land within the ex-Thames Water Depot site for development. 49

The land around the Waterworks Centre and the ex-Thames Water Depot is Metropolitan Open Land. This means that, under the National Planning Policy Framework and the London Plan, it is protected from inappropriate development. Housing is not, and never will be, appropriate development.

The area around the Waterworks Centre is used for leisure and recreation and the Lee Valley Regional Park Act does not empower the Lee Valley Regional Park Authority (LVRPA) to sell off land that is used for leisure and recreation. The LVRPA should not have suggested to you, the London Borough of Waltham Forest, that it is able to develop this land for housing.

The land around the Waterworks Centre and the Thames Water Depot is floodplain. It is against both the National Planning Policy Framework and the London Plan to build on floodplain.

At no point during the consultations about a new ice rink was anyone told that it would be funded by selling off recreational land. If the LVRPA cannot finance the ice rink without selling off green spaces, then it cannot afford a new ice rink. It is unconscionable that the Council, which purports to represent all residents, would support the selling off of land that people without much disposable income can use for leisure and recreation for free in order to build an ice rink that only those with money can use.

Claims that the Waterworks is underused and this justifies closing it are disingenuous. It is underused only because those managing it have let it run into the ground over the last few years. There is so much that could be done to make it a vibrant community hub that pays its way. Not least the reinstatement of the very popular golf course (which we were promised would be returned to us after London 2012 anyway).

The semi-natural habitats of the marshes – of which the land around the Waterworks Centre is part – are a haven for wildlife and home to protected species, including kingfishers, bats and dragonflies. They are also important for migrating birds. Housing on the marshes, so close to the nature reserve, would degrade the environment, polluting it with light and noise, and threaten the viability of important wildlife populations. Over the last few years, we have seen the piecemeal erosion of open space throughout the . In each case, those proposing a development have told local people that they are only losing a small piece of land.

However, the cumulative effects of these developments are beginning to have a serious impact on the quality of life and the health and well-being of residents. If the LVRPA - the very organisation tasked with protecting some of our most precious green spaces – is encouraged by this plan to try and sell off even one acre of Metropolitan Open Land, then it is no exaggeration to say that the spectre of our marshes disappearing under high-rise tower blocks comes one step closer.

I’ll finish with a statement made by the LVRPA itself in 2011, when it opposed the housing development at Essex Wharf, just across the road from both the Thames Water Depot and the Waterworks Centre: ‘We think it will have a major adverse impact on a large area of the Park. Residential development does not fit within the remit of the Park.’ I couldn’t have said it better myself.

Please amend 'Lea Valley Eastside Vision' to ensure that Metropolitan Open Land within the London Borough of Waltham Forest is protected.

With best wishes

Of the 174 emails received, 163 emails included the standard text (as shown above) and used the following email titles:

 Lea Valley Eastside consultation response  Please scrap your plan to build on Metropolitan Open Land  MOL north side of Hackney Marshes  Plan to build on our open spaces 50

 Untitled  Lea Bridge Eastside Vision Consultation  Objection to Eastside Vision plan re Waterworks Centre & Thames Water depot  We oppose development of Open Metropolitan Land on both the Water Works and Ice Rink site  Lea Valley Eastside  Lea Valley Eastside Vision - Lea Bridge Consultation  Objection to building on the waterworks  Proposed sale of Metropolitan Open Land at the Waterworks site  Your 'Lea Valley Eastside Vision'  Response to consultation to build on Metropolitan open land - Waterworks Centre and surrounding area  Please do not build on Metropolitan Open Land  East side Consultation  Please abandon your plans to build on Metropolitan Open Land  Building on the marshes  Objection to sales of waterworks site  Please scrap your plan to build on Metropolitan Open Land  'Save Leyton Marshes'  No development of Metropolitan Open Land!  Plan to re-zone Metropolitan Open Land for housing  Please halt your plan to build on Metropolitan Open Land  Planning to build on the Lea Marshes  Please reconsider your plan to build on Metropolitan Open Land  Building around the Waterworks Centre  Plans to build on Metropolitan Open Land  Lea bridge consultation  Please abandon your plans to build on Metropolitan Open Land  Scrap the plan to rezone Metropolitan Open Land for housing  Lea Valley Eastside Vision: proposals for Waterworks Centre  Waterworks Centre housing within the ex-Thames Water Depot site.  Great concern over Metropolitan Open Land in the Leyton/Hackney border  Opposition to building on Metropolitan Open Land  Building  Please ditch the plan to build on Metropolitan Open Land  Building on Metropolitan Open Land  Opposition to your plan to build on Metropolitan Open Land  Please scrap your plans for our beautiful Lea Valley  Please abandon the illegal plan to build upon Metropolitan Land  Re-zoning of Metropolitan Open Land For Housing  Urge you to reconsider plan to build on Metropolitan Open Land  Metropolitan open land use  Waterworks Lea valley park plans   Housing on the Lea Marshes  Lea Bridge 'Vision'  Objection to the plan to rezone Metropolitan Open Land Lea Marshes for housing  Objection to Rezoning Metropolitan land for housing - Leyton Marshes/waterworks centre

51

Please see below all other comments made in addition to the standard text in these emails and the Council’s responses below:

Title of E-mail Additional Comments Council's Response Lea Bridge Eastside There can be no possible legal remit for any Comments noted. Text has Vision Consultation Council to remove Metropolitan Open Land - Please refer to section 9.11 especially in the name of housing development. London’s lung is what this whole area is called and mercifully allows us space and air which is not possible in any other area of London. I am told that the London Borough of Waltham Forest's Director of Strategic Planning has recently been minuted saying that he was "not arguing to release Metropolitan Open Land to meet housing need”. If such is the case then we need to hear the argument which dictates the necessity for this act of vandalism. The Olympics (for which we are still paying) was supposed leave a legacy of encouraging people to get outside and possibly even do some sport. So far the LBWF’s answer to this legacy was to close a much loved recreational golf course and subsequently to propose building on it. If I was a cynical person I might think that this was always the Council’s intention but it did not have the Political nerve to do it one catastrophic manoeuvre where voters and Olympic protagonists might notice. Please stop plans to I live just off the Lea Bridge Road which as you Comments noted. Please build on Metropolitan will know is unable to deal with the amount of refer to sections 9.1-9.1.7 Open Land traffic. Between 6:30am-10am and 5:00pm- and 9.11 7:30pm the traffic levels are at an unacceptably high level. From where I live (off Seymour Rd) to Clapton Pond Roundabout traffic is at a standstill in these hours. The other morning I had to drive a works van from my home (which I rarely have to do), it took me 20 minutes to drive from Perth Road to Orient Way, and this is approx. 100 meters. The level of air pollution is so bad I can't cycle to work on the road any more as the fumes from the miles of standing traffic is choking. Any more housing and development is going to make this even worse, I just can't imagine how it could get any worse but it really will. It will make living in the area a health hazard.

52

Comments noted. Please The Water works centre and cafe has been left to refer to section 9.11 rot to or seemingly actively run into the ground. Every single cafe and in the lea valley is bustling and popular in the week and weekends. But because it’s been so badly run (and this really does look like this hasn't happened by accident) no one uses it. It’s under staffed, badly managed, bafflingly poor food and drink. The place is so unappealing that no one goes, but look at Springfield Park Cafe, Markfield Park Cafe, The Princess of Wales Pub and every other cafe/pub in the area, all these places are heaving and so could the waterworks centre be if it was allowed to. Please do not tear it down, but instead use the great space and location to create a cafe and learning centre that people will want to use. Lea Bridge Eastside As far as home building goes, I agree it is vitally Comments noted. Please Vision consultation important but I do not see any improvement refer to sections 9.3 and occurring for local people despite massive 9.11 building programmes everywhere. It seems the whole business is driven by openness to foreign capital, cuts to central government funding of local government, and nothing has been done to improve access to mortgages. Objection to The fact that some of the land has been built on Comments noted. Please redesignating the with a cafe and a car park does not change its refer to section 9.11 Metropolitan Open status. If there is a problem with that use then it Land at the should simply be returned to its natural state. Waterworks site on The fact that it has been built on does not justify Leyton Marsh the next step of removing its protection. The fact that the LVRPA has failed to use the land sensibly, has demolished the golf course and failed to develop the use of the building as an educational centre does not justify abandoning these uses for housing. The golf course was well used whereas the campsites have brought in little revenue and damaged access. Waltham Forest ignored objections when that proposal was made.

53

Objection to parts of In informal conversations during the Comments noted. Please the Eastside consultation, officers have pointed put that the refer to sections 9.1-9.1.7 Plans\Vision proposed housing at the Waterworks would be along the car free (disabled excepted) lines seen elsewhere in Waltham Forest. And Footpath 130 goes right through the proposed housing development! There is no such reassurance for the proposed expanded Ice Centre, 240 parking spaces. In my view given the excellent connectivity in the Lea Bridge Road and taking the medium to longest term positive view of public transport and cycling improvements, only small car parking should be approved for any facility on Lea Bridge Road. The fundamental weakness of this vision is that it excludes the detail on climate and transport impacts, taking on board current and future transport and access improvements. It is flawed and needs more work. Objection to Part of The Waterworks Centre used to be a popular Comments noted. Please Eastside Plans location for people to go for refreshment when refer to section 9.11 visiting the nature reserve and marshes. Recently, it had become very difficult to visit this facility as the opening hours had reduced so much, it was almost impossible to find it open! This suggests a mismanagement of a formerly popular facility which also supported the former golf course, closed for the 2012 Olympics and never re-opened as promised. The advantage of the golf course was that it allowed the Authority to run a business supporting the Park whilst the land remained fully accessible to the public.

Comments On Lea I think the name Lea Valley Eastside is awful and Comments noted. The Valley Eastside Vision would prefer that each area, Lea Bridge, Church Vision document will be Road and Leyton be referred to individually. called the “Lea Bridge and Creating an ‘Eastside’ seems to imply a desire for Leyton Vision” rather than an amalgamation of three very distinct areas Lea Valley Eastside to with their own centres into one area, which reflect responses to the doesn’t recognise the uniqueness of Lea Bridge, public consultation. Church Road or Leyton. • No building on LVRP land; site opposite ice rink Comment noted. Please to be fully returned to nature and no building on refer to section 9.11 Waterworks site due to flooding

54

• Section 106 money generated by Comments noted. Please developments in Lea Bridge ward to be ring- refer to sections 9.4 and 9.5 fenced for projects within the ward, e.g. community facilities • More health infrastructure e.g. GP hubs that are planned well, a Walk in Centre • Regen/planning departments to support entertainment and social opportunities within the area • Increased early years provision, e.g. nursery or CC • Keep Leyton FC as sports field • Expand the restoration aspects of this plan Comments noted. Please alongside the 'regeneration' e.g. shop front refer to section 9.6 improvement in keeping with Bakers Arms and Leyton High St regeneration and to include Markhouse corner in planned shop front re- design • Better transport links, e.g. more trains per hour Comments noted. Please on train line to Liverpool Street, bus to Leyton refer to sections 9.1-9.1.7 Mills and then on to Stratford • Road layout improvements e.g. improved pedestrian and bicycle crossing at Lea Bridge /Argal Way and Markhouse / Lea Bridge • More consideration of actual road laydown and use by current residents, e.g. consider the importance of Heybridge Way / former B&Q site and that in the absence of many local residents engaging with the Betfred or church at the Markhouse/Lea Bridge junction (which could be natural centre of the area) and the opening of the new station, the H&H and former B&Q site feels like a centre • Better access into the marshes, e.g. more Comments noted. Please crossings over the Lea and Brook that are refer to section 9.7 accessible for bikes & buggies, access under bridge • Recognition that pubs are important to the Comments noted. Please area; H&H, Antelope and the Greyhound refer to section 9.10 • Planning to only be granted if design meets Comments noted. Please design council standards and fits with local refer to sections 9.2 and 9.8 character e.g. low raise blocks

55

FW: Lea Valley if I am going to lose out on already existing open Comments noted. Please consultation space I would like to be compensated in some refer to sections 9.1.3 and way. For example I am all for improving what's 9.7 already in the borough; I believe the area around the greyhound pub could really use some regeneration. I am also a big fan of the proposals for a better bridge connecting jubilee park and the marshes, cycling any other way is currently very dangerous and I have seen many accidents in the year I have lived here. Currently it is difficult for elderly cyclists to push a bike up those steps and there's no access for disabled people, but instead of knocking the bridge down and rebuilding the entire thing, why not add a step less, sloped access onto that same bridge. Community facilities I was pleased with your approach; hence, my Support noted. Please refer SUGGESTION asking of the Lea Bridge Road decongestion and to sections 9.1.1 and 9.5 indeed the gassing and fuming came up on the News the following day as a serious health issue. There are many churches in London but not facilitators. Printing Bible, we go to Swindon; is it possible to have a Bible Resources Centre in Borough to host Religious courses in London. Hello I went to a meeting of the Executive Committee Comments noted. Please at the LVRPA HQ in Enfield yesterday in which refer to section 9.11 they stated they have 17million in the bank. The selling of the land is to fund the new Ice Rink. Why can't they use their reserves then restock when the Ice Rink starts to coin it in? Untitled I note the plan to improve leisure and sports Comments noted. Please facilities, an irony considering you appear to be refer to section 9.11 eyeing up the Ice and Riding centres used by many.

6. SUMMARY OF CONSULTATION RESULTS

6.1 The responses to the public consultation via the on-line portal are shown below expressed as pie charts. These do not include the petition or the e-mails received. 6.2 In summary, the results of the public consultation from the on-line portal show 41% strongly agree or agree with the Vision, 9% are neutral and 45% disagree or strongly disagree – with 6% giving no response.

56

In terms of the Lea Bridge area 35% strongly agree or agree with the Vision, 12% are neutral and 44% disagree or strongly disagree – with 10% giving no response.

In terms of the Church Road area 36% strongly agree or agree with the Vision, 27% are neutral and 21% disagree or strongly disagree – with 18% giving no response.

57

To what extent do you agree with the vision for Church Road?

Strongly agree 12% Agree 24% Neutral 26% Disagree 5% Strongly disagree 15% No Response 18%

In terms of the Leyton area 33% strongly agree or agree with the Vision, 27% are neutral and 22% disagree or strongly disagree – with 19% giving no response.

To what extent do you agree with the vision for Leyton?

Strongly agree 14% Agree 19% Neutral 26% Disagree 5% Strongly disagree 17% No Response 19%

The results of whether respondees agreed with the name “Lea Valley Eastside” showed that 22% liked the name, 42% did not like the name and 21% were neutral, with 15% giving no response.

58

Therefore the Vision has been amended to be called “Lea Bridge and Leyton Vison” with each area retaining its individual identity and name. The Council will use the “Lea Valley Eastside” format specifically for branding and inward investment purposes – to signal the step change in aspirations for the area.

6.3 Comments received focussed on a number of key issues summarised into key themes with full Council responses below:

 Transport is a major issue in the vision area as streets and public transport is already at capacity  No High-Rise towers  Affordable Housing should be priority  Additional and improved access to green space and parks  Community Facilities are much needed and are already at capacity  The quality of shops in the area is poor. Council’s High Street Shop Front Scheme should be extended to other main roads in the Vision area  New access roads/links and foot and cycle bridges as streets are congested  Aesthetic and quality of new housing developments is key, as well as improvement to public realm  Flexible and affordable business/workspace needed  Pubs should be protected  Opposition to plans to building on Metropolitan Open Land (MOL)  Flooding

Please find detailed responses to key issues raised in section 9 below from page 62 onwards. All comments received can be found in Annex A from page 76 onwards.

7. PLANNING STATUS OF VISION DOCUMENT

The Economic Growth Strategy has identified that there is potential to deliver change in the Lea Bridge and Leyton area. The Local Plan Review will consider the options for development across the 59

whole borough, including the area outlined in this Vision. The Council will engage with key partners and stakeholders on the Local Plan review.

As part of this process, the Council will also consider the most appropriate planning mechanism for delivering change in the area generally. Following the Local Plan review there may be the preparation of Supplementary Planning Documents, masterplans or development briefs.

8. CHANGES TO VISION AS RESULT OF CONSULTATION

Aside from formatting changes, the following key changes have been made to the Vision following public consultation. The page numbers shown refer to the final Vision document. No. Revision Page 1 Date of document updated all 2 Added road names and Vision area boundary to aerial photograph 2 3 Added road and river names to plan 4 Refinement of Vision wording to clarify opportunities for change and that the Vision is not a 4 planning document Various 5 Amendment of supporting maps and plans to reflect amendments to site proposals Various 6 Revised Executive Summary wording to clarify aims and status of the Vision 5 Revised Vision slide with added road names, correct route of cycle path in Argall Avenue area, amended proposals for various sites including Waterworks centre, Eurostar depot, Gas holders site, Leyton Orient Football Club, Lea Bridge centre and Leyton Mills junction access. Proposal for former Thames Water depot site corrected to reflect underground utility constraints and 7 minor wording changes. 6 & 7 Revised wording: This area forms Phase 2 of the GLA designated Housing Zone with a target to provide at least 2,500 new homes over 10 years, helping to deliver the Government’s national 8 housing target and the Mayor’s regional target. 8 Additional wording: The Lea Valley Regional Park is also further west of the Lea Valley River. The Park is designated as Metropolitan Open Land. There are also Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), Site of Metropolitan Importance to Nature Conservation (SMINC) and RAMSRR Special 9 Conservation Area; which highlight the biodiversity within the surrounding area. 11 10 Revised Key Constraints plan including how flood zones are shown 12 11 Addition of key land use policy designations map 14 Additional wording: The assets of the area – significant employment land, robust Victorian street network and the amount and proximity of open green space (including Metropolitan 12 Open Land) – provide a strong basis for considering the future evolution of the area. 18 Additional wording: Leyton and Lea Bridge has significant green on its doorstep, (including Lea Valley Regional Park which is designated as Metropolitan Open Land) but one that is largely 13 poorly integrated or connected with the urban areas. 19 Additional wording: Opportunities should be sought to enhance neighbourhoods with high quality green and open spaces, including better connectivity, enhanced habitats and ecological 14 assets. 21 Added wording: Social and cultural regeneration: Any neighbourhood should have a balanced social structure, cultural offer and evening economy that serves existing residents with the 15 requirement for new market and social housing. 21 16 Deleted reference to storey height. 21

60

Additional wording to emphasise “opportunity for” and new wording: Promote the design of the built environment with urban microclimate and climate change in mind maximising the use of 17 green infrastructure, promoting sustainable energy generation and reducing flood risk. 22 Objective added: Opportunity to enhance ecological assets, open spaces and habitats through 18 landscape management, sensitive design and sympathetic development. 22 19 Reduced wording. 23 Additional wording: Protecting Metropolitan Open Land (MOL): National Planning Policy and the London Plan require the protection of MOL and any deviation from this will have to justify very special circumstances. Ive Farm has already been granted planning permission for improved sports facilities. The need to release MOL for development will be considered as part of the Local Plan review informed by an evidence base and tested by the Sustainability Appraisal 20 process. 25 Added wording: Reducing Flood Risk: A key objective of new development will be to reduce the flood risk from both fluvial and surface water. Significant areas of land within the Lea Bridge and Leyton area are within flood zones (see plan on page 12). Mitigation measures will be needed as part of any developments to reduce or remove the flood risk. This will be addressed as part of the detailed delivery and review of the local plan which will include a re-fresh of the Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA). Please refer to Environment Agency website 21 (https://data.gov.uk/) for up to date information. 25 Additional wording: The Regional Park is a major asset for the Borough - it is a unique landscape with an important history and designated as a Site of Metropolitan Importance for Nature 22 Conservation (SMI). 27 Additional wording: The area around Lea Bridge Station could form a new mixed use local centre 23 with community, health facilities, a richer retail offer and evening economy uses. 26 Additional wording: The growth of Lea Bridge and Leyton will require a sustainable response in terms of movement and transport, maximising the investment in the reopened Lea Bridge 24 station. 27 Additional wording: Explore the potential to re-open connections from Low Hall into the Lea 25 Valley 27 Revised Vision slide with added road names, correct route of cycle path in Argall Avenue area, amended proposals for various sites including Waterworks centre, Eurostar depot, Gas holders site, Lea Bridge centre and Leyton Mills junction access. Proposals for former Thames Water 28 & 26 depot site is corrected to reflect underground utility constraints and minor wording changes. 29 Amendment of hexagons to show Gas Holder site clearly in Church Road area and amendment 27 of proposals for Waterworks Centre and Leyton Mills sites 30 Deletion of wording for “Short, Medium and Long term” and additional wording: Compliance with the Air Quality Neutral Mayor of London policies and Waltham Forest's Air Quality Management Zone will need to be taken into account. Developments should also be designed to 28 create a safe and secure environment. 31 Revised wording: The study has found that the character of the area is low to medium scale, which suggests that the focus could be on medium scale development of between three and six storeys with one or two opportunities for greater height immediately around sustainable locations such as the station. Any development should of course be subject to sensitive and high quality design. Through the review of the Local Plan, opportunities for developments to be 29 virtually car free and have sensitive servicing of non-residential uses will be explored. 31 Revised wording: Employment focus within the area is an opportunity to provide the area with vibrancy akin to Hackney . There is opportunity to transform the environment along Lea Bridge Road. Lea Bridge Road is an important gateway between Lea Valley and the urban area of 30 Lea Bridge and Leyton and there is an opportunity to reflect this possibly by using key nodes. 31 Plan amended to revise Waterworks Centre site proposal and removal of community gardens 31 proposal from Gas Holders site. 32 Additional wording: The study has considered the character of the area and that a focus on low to medium scale could be suitable and that generally between four to six storeys would be in 32 keeping with the area. Development in the area could retain the same level of employment 35 61

space and jobs in line with planning policy. There is an opportunity to consider the creation of a new neighbourhood. Through the review of the Local Plan, opportunities for developments to be virtually car free and have sensitive servicing of non-residential uses will be explored. 33 Reduced wording for Dagenham Brook, Markhouse Corner and Ive Farm. 35 34 Plan amended to revise Leyton Mills junction access and site proposal. 36 Additional wording: The Council considers there may be an opportunity to deliver a new station at Ruckholt Road and the feasibility of such a project will be tested through the Local Plan review and associated Infrastructure Delivery Plan, working with key stakeholders (GLA and TfL). The principle of tall buildings in this area is supported and confirmed by Policy CS15 of the Waltham Forest Local Plan Core Strategy (2012). At Dunedin Road 16 and 12 storey towers have been approved due to its highly visible gateway location and the opportunity for a landmark building. On the Bywaters site 15 storey towers have been approved in the southwestern perimeter of the site as they overlook marshland and open spaces and where they will not impact on neighbouring residential amenity. New development could provide a range of building heights from 2-3 storey houses, to medium rise apartment blocks and in certain locations taller 35 buildings. 37 Amended wording: Leyton Mills: The vision has undertaken a character study of the area and considers that the Council should explore the opportunities for redevelopment at Leyton Mills through the Local Plan review. The site could possibly be intensified, densified and raised in height. Considering the character of the area, appropriate building heights may be between three and six storeys. There are also opportunities to consider better connection with the wider 36 Leyton area. 37 Additional wording: Coronation Square: Coronation Square is located within walking distance from Leyton tube station which comprises Bywaters, SCORE and Osier Way sites. These sites are the subject of emerging planning proposals. The Council will work to ensure that they present an opportunity for a new high quality residential neighbourhood. The council will also review opportunities to improve the public realm around the edge of the Eurostar depot. Through the review of the Local Plan, opportunities for developments to be virtually car free and have 37 sensitive servicing of non-residential uses will be explored 37 Additional wording and revised figures for new homes: "The study considers that the following indicative proposals could be achieved but this will need to be further tested and evaluated through the Local Plan review process.

LEA BRIDGE 1,230 homes CHURCH ROAD 580 homes 38 LEYTON 2,380 homes 38 39 Various wording changes pages 40-42 Addition of map showing 5 potential areas following Local Plan review for Supplementary 40 Planning Documents 43 was on 41 Deletion of "Early Opportunity Station sites" artists impression p. 39 Was on 42 Deletion of Land Use definitions p. 44

9. COUNCIL’S RESPONSES

Please find the Council’s responses to the key issues raised below. The Vision is not a planning document and further work will be undertaken as part of the Local Plan review due to complete in early 2020. That review will be informed by the Vision and all the responses received to this public consultation.

62

Detailed changes which have been made to the Vision as a result of consideration of the responses to the public consultation exercise are shown in section 8 above.

9.1 Transport

There were numerous responses to the consultation relating to transport issues covering existing issues, comments on future developments and suggestions for new proposals. Further work on transport issues will be undertaken as part of the Local Plan review and there is existing on-going work on transport provision as shown below. Changes made to the Vision relating to transport interventions are shown above.

The Council is developing a package of projects to provide the additional transport capacity necessary to accommodate growth in the Lea Bridge and Leyton area. Some key projects are highlighted below (both funded and aspirational) which will significantly increase transport capacity. Some of these projects are currently being worked on, and some are a result of comments received from this consultation. While the projects are presented on an individual basis, they should be seen as part of a whole package to create a suite of interventions in the area which will be reviewed and tested further as part of the Local Plan review process.

9.1.1 Congestion The Vision aims that developments should be virtually “car-free” due to capacity concerns on the road network and this aspiration will be taken forward and tested through the Local Plan review. In the interim, the Council will work with developers who submit any planning applications in the Vision area before completion of the Local Plan review to comply with existing planning policy, including to minimise car parking and not issue on-street CPZ permits, with the exception of disabled parking. Developers will be expected to demonstrate using transport models that they will not have an adverse impact on the surrounding road network.

These are the high level principles of the Vision regarding virtually “car free”, and individual transport statements will need to be submitted with any planning applications including consideration of appropriate levels of car parking.

The Councils’ transport projects focus on sustainable transport improvements to reduce the reliance on private cars. This is the most robust way of combating traffic, congestion and air quality issues in the borough.

Lea Bridge Road (A104) forms part of Transport for London’s Strategic Route Network, (SRN), and as such, both any planning applications and the Enjoy Waltham Forest schemes are subject to Transport for London (TfL) approvals for impact on the road network and bus services.

Fixed point speed cameras are managed by TfL (along with the respective borough) and are enforced by the Police. There are very specific collision criteria to be met for a site to be considered for a speed camera. Orient Way does not currently meet these criteria.

9.1.2 Parking Several consultation responses highlighted that existing Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) parking permit zone hours should be extended in line with business hours as more people move around the area. In response to these suggestions, the Council has an aspiration to implement this change which would be the subject of a separate project led by the Highways Team.

63

Some sites within the vision area are private land ie: Leyton Mills. Any on-site parking policies would be considered as part of any future planning application. The appropriate level of car parking provision would be considered at planning application stage on a site by site basis.

9.1.3 Enjoy Waltham Forest – Walking and Cycling In 2014, Waltham Forest was awarded £27million by TfL to make improvements to the streets and public spaces in the borough for their Mini Holland scheme, branded as Enjoy Waltham Forest in the borough.

The programme is focussed on changing the way people travel around the borough by providing high quality walking and cycling infrastructure on main routes linking to the public transport network whilst creating quiet neighbourhoods that are great places to live work and travel around.

The Enjoy Waltham Forest proposals will help to reduce reliance on private cars and encourage existing trends of decreasing car ownership. In the medium and longer term this should mean fewer vehicles and more people walking and cycling, as well as more trees, planting and paving, all of which will improve the environmental quality.

The introduction of new walking and cycling infrastructure will support residents in making healthier, more sustainable transport choices reducing the negative impacts of local car / vehicle journeys including congestion and air pollution. The Council already know that more people are choosing to walk and cycle and less people are driving private vehicles. Cycling on Lea Bridge Road increased by 507% from 2000 to 2014, while cars and taxis decreased by 16% in the same period. In 2014 cycles made up 8% of all vehicles on Lea Bridge Road, compared to just 1% in 2000 (Department for Transport).

The Lea Bridge Road scheme represents Waltham Forest’s flagship scheme, and a major reorganisation of this key corridor including the aim of widening the cycle lane on the bridge near Lea Bridge station will provide a high quality segregated space for pedestrians and cyclists, whilst retaining key sections of bus lane.

The Enjoy Waltham Forest scheme also supports improvements to the pedestrian environment such as upgrading pedestrian crossings to make them simpler, introducing new crossings such as the two new signalised crossing points at Markhouse Corner and introducing ‘blended crossings’ (also known as ‘continuous footways’) on side roads which give priority to pedestrians. The scheme is also delivering significant junction upgrades, for all road users which was requested in several consultation responses. This includes upgrades to the Lea Bridge Road/Argall Way/Orient Way junction and the Lea Bridge Road/Markhouse Road junction including traffic lights. The Lea Bridge Road corridor is due for completion at the end of 2018.

The new cycle infrastructure being introduced as part of the Enjoy Waltham Forest Programme is designed to TfL’s cycling design standards, which place importance on safety. All the measures being introduced are designed to make cycling safer and easier, for example by introducing cycle signals at junctions, floating bus stops (where cycles go behind the bus stop to avoid conflict with buses) and segregated cycle lanes. Safety audits are used when developing schemes which help identify safety issues that can be addressed.

The scheme’s approach will reduce traffic in neighbourhoods and town centres to create safer streets for walking and cycling, and main corridor routes will have segregated cycle provision

64

and junction improvements. The Programme includes a number of schemes, some of which are complete (such as the Village schemes) and others are in the process of being designed / constructed (such as routes) and are therefore incomplete. Further works for example are being considered for Hoe Street, to extend the infrastructure introduced in 2015, as part of the Leyton to cycle route.

As part of the Enjoy Waltham Forest proposals, the Council has been making significant improvements to streets and public spaces to support community life and make the borough a more pleasant place to live and travel around.

The Council are also increasing the amount of tree planting and low level planting in streets and public spaces and improving air quality in the longer term. The Lea Bridge Road scheme alone will plant around 300 new trees in total and tree planting will remain a vital part of all Enjoy Waltham Forest schemes.

9.1.4 Bus Services Improvements to the local bus network are required to secure the level of potential development indicatively shown in the Vision. There was support from this consultation for extending bus routes to serve Orient Way and Oliver Road. The Council will work on this in partnership with Transport for London (TfL).

The desire to retain Lea Bridge Road bus lanes and improve service times was voiced in several comments in the Vision consultation. The Lea Bridge Road Enjoy Waltham Forest changes received support through the Enjoy Waltham Forest consultation and have been designed in collaboration with TfL. As a result of Enjoy Waltham Forest consultation responses, strategic sections of bus lane are now being retained and further work is being done to improve bus journey times along the entire Lea Bridge Road corridor.

In detail the bus lane changes on Lea Bridge Road are:  Eastbound bus lane between Lee Valley Ice Centre up to the Flood Relief Channel retained  Eastbound bus lane between Argall Way and Markhouse Road removed  Eastbound bus lane between Albany Road and Russell Road removed  Eastbound bus lane between Shernhall Street and Raglan Road removed  Westbound bus lane between Bickley Road and Church Road retained between Avondale Road and Church Road  Westbound bus lane between Church Road and Elm Park Road retained between Blyth Road and Elm Park Road

9.1.5 Rail Projects

1. Lea Bridge Station Several requests were made for more trains at the newly reopened Lea Bridge station. A scheme is currently under construction to allow additional trains to run between Stratford and Angel Road in December 2018, increasing the service from two to four trains per hour. This will improve access to transport networks and jobs across London, via Stratford and the Upper Lea Valley via Hale, helping to reduce traffic congestion on the road network by converting more trips from car to rail.

65

2. Leyton Underground Station Peak time congestion is a clear issue at Leyton tube station and the Council is already working with TfL to develop proposals to radically improve the station. This would introduce step-free access to the platforms and provide a larger concourse to cater for a higher number of passengers. Subject to securing the necessary funding and approvals, the scheme could be completed by 2021. A second entrance will not be needed in the proposed scheme.

3. Ruckholt Road Station The Council is investigating the possibility of providing an additional station half way between Lea Bridge and Stratford, which is an area of low public transport accessibility with potential for around 2,380 new homes. An initial feasibility study is being commissioned to determine whether a station could be constructed at this location and indicative costs. The feasibility study is expected to be completed in autumn 2017.

4. Leyton Midland Road Station The Barking to Gospel Oak London Overground line is currently being upgraded with overhead electrification enabling new four car electric trains to be introduced in December 2018. The passenger capacity will be more than doubled, improving current congestion issues at peak hours and allowing greater numbers of orbital trips around London to be made by rail.

5. Elizabeth Line (Crossrail) Due to open in 2019, this will provide a new high frequency, high capacity service linking Stratford with nine central London stations. Stratford can easily be accessed from Leyton Underground in 2 minutes, giving residents faster access to London destinations.

6. Hall Farm Curve The Council has a long-term aspiration to provide direct rail services from the north of the borough to Stratford. Recent feasibility work suggests that this could be challenging due to a lack of network and platform capacity at Stratford.

9.1.6 Sustainable Car Initiatives New developers will be encouraged to install and encourage car club facilities. Statistics show that car club members commonly choose not to own a car or decide not to buy a second car, therefore decreasing car ownership and the number of cars parked on-street. Car club members are also more likely to car share and to take public transport more frequently than average residents. Waltham Forest currently has two car clubs; Zipcar offers round-trip vehicles from a car club bay and Drive Now offers a more flexible model. Other car club operators have expressed an interest in working with the borough and the Council are working to double the number of car club bays by the end of 2017.

Electric vehicle use has increased rapidly in recent years. With no tailpipe emissions, the wider use of electric vehicles has the potential to greatly improve London’s poor air quality. There are currently around 16 electric vehicle charging points in borough carparks. The Council is undertaking a tender process with plans to at least double this provision by the end of 2017 by creating a residential network on borough roads.

9.1.7 Air Quality There were several responses to the public consultation relating to air quality. Tackling air quality is a priority for the London Borough of Waltham Forest, particularly relating to its two highest causes – transport and domestic gas boilers for heating. This transport response section

66

details the numerous projects that the Council and partners are undertaking to improve and increase public transport opportunities and therefore reduce emissions primarily from road based transport, including through the use of zero emission electric vehicles. The Council is also working with the GLA to explore opportunities in the Lea Bridge and Leyton area for de- centralised energy networks for any clusters of potential development sites to reduce carbon emissions from heating systems.

The Vision has also been amended following consideration of responses to the public consultation as shown in the table in section 8 of this report (above). Additional wording has been included on p. 31 stating that “Compliance with the Air Quality Neutral Mayor of London policies and Waltham Forest's Air Quality Management Zone will need to be taken into account. Developments should also be designed to create a safe and secure environment.” Work on this will be taken forward through the Local Plan review process.

The A12 is known to be a major existing barrier in the local area. There was an ambition from the previous mayoral administration to explore decking over the A12 however this was found to be very expensive. The Council will continue to work with TfL to try to mitigate the impact and pollution of the A12 on the local area.

9.2 Potential Height and Density Issues

There were several comments from the public consultation relating to height and density of any potential developments. The consideration of appropriate height and density in new development will be one of the issues to be considered through the Local Plan review process.

The Vision has suggested opportunities relating to height of development including a range of building heights from 2 -3 storey houses, to medium rise apartment blocks (c. 6 storeys) and potentially, in certain locations, taller buildings.

Any proposals and planning applications received before completion of the new Local Plan will need to accord with the principles of Policy DM31 of the Waltham Forest Local Plan Development Management Policies (2013) regarding tall buildings, including the quality of design and architecture, impact on privacy and amenity with adjacent properties, existing landscape and surroundings. Daylight and sunlight analysis will also be required. Individual developments will be required to contribute financially towards appropriate transport and social infrastructure.

In seeking to meet demand through the Local Plan review for new housing and to make the most efficient and optimum use of land, the Council will seek to ensure the highest standards of design in all new housing developments. Any proposals brought forward before completion of the new Local Plan will need to comply with existing planning policies and will be assessed against existing London Plan and aim to comply with the London Plan density matrix in relation to public transport access levels, accessibility to local amenities and services.

9.3 Provision of Affordable Housing

A number of comments were received regarding the quantum and affordability of new housing locally and who will be providing it. This is increasingly important with rapidly rising house prices and rents. Further work on housing numbers and the provision of affordable housing will be undertaken as part of the Local Plan review. The Council has a positive commitment to

67

providing affordable social housing which will form a key part of the new Local Plan and has publicly committed to facilitate the delivery of 12,000 homes over the next few years - developing around 2000 of these itself to help people in need of affordable accommodation.

The Council has established Waltham Forest Developments Limited, a company wholly owned by the Council, to deliver new homes. It is anticipated that the company will deliver just under 200 homes with a mix of tenures up to by 2020/21, and potentially acquire additional homes on Council led developments like the Score Centre / Coronation Square development site. The ownership, tenure and rent levels of these homes have yet to be determined. The Council’s Affordable Housing Guidance, which is applied to planning applications, states that “the Council will seek to ensure that affordable rented homes are affordable for local households at first let and into the future. To be affordable, rents should be significantly lower than market rents”.

Planning applications for individual sites will be considered on a case by case basis against existing adopted planning policies, including consideration of design and quality and the mitigation of any adverse impact. Current Council planning policies aim to secure 50% affordable housing, but each planning application has to be considered on its individual merits, including financial viability and this can reduce the number of affordable homes built.

The Mayor of London’s recent revised guidance, for consultation, seeks to secure a minimum of 35% affordable housing, which should be a combination of intermediate homes (mainly shared ownership) and rented homes. A proportion of the rented homes should be at the London Living Rent, which is 30% of the average household income for the ward where the development is happening. Housing viability in Waltham Forest is being is being reviewed with revised Planning Guidance due to be consulted on later this year, along with a new Housing Strategy. Brexit may also have implications for housing development and the delivery of affordable homes, although currently there is a strong market appetite for investing in new schemes.

9.4 Access to Green Space and Parks

Some public consultation responses related to access to green spaces and parks. A key part of the Vision is to improve connectivity between existing Lea Bridge and Leyton communities into the large areas of existing open space such as Leyton Jubilee Park, the Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park and the Lee Valley Regional Park. The Vision has been changed to clarify the status of existing open space and that enhancements would be required as part of individual site applications including better connectivity, enhanced habitats and ecological assets. Following the review of the Local Plan, funding will need to be identified including from the Infrastructure Delivery Plan review. The intention is to work with any adjacent developments to improve Dagenham Brook and the public realm.

Access to green space for the public will be dependent on the nature and scale of future development. In negotiating proposals for major development, particularly residential development, appropriate provision will be made for amenity space for residents, through balconies or private gardens for individual dwellings or private communal space shared by residents of a particular residential block. Appropriate provision will also be sought, wherever possible, for public access to existing and/or new areas of green space for the benefit of the wider neighbourhood.

68

Improved accessibility and permeability will be delivered through innovative design and integration of new schemes within the existing urban fabric.

The Vision envisages that allotment sites will be "retained and enhanced". The possibility of revising the access arrangements to the Leyton Mills site which affected statutory allotments has been removed from the draft Vision following public consultation. This is because appropriation of allotment land would require justification to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government which the Vision does not provide. All existing allotment sites are retained within the Vision.

The Council has commissioned a Playing Pitches Strategy as part of the new Local Plan which includes the former Leyton Football Club. This is due to report in autumn 2017 and the Council is working to deliver further public engagement about the future of the site.

Please find more information about Ive Farm under section 9.5.

9.5 Provision of Social Infrastructure

Several comments were received relating to the need for improved social infrastructure which includes schools, health, community, cultural and evening economy facilities. Further work will be undertaken as part of the Local Plan review as place-shaping envisages creating balanced vibrant communities with the required social infrastructure. The Vision includes aspirations for new health and community hubs at Lea Bridge and Leyton Coronation Square new neighbourhood.

The Vision has been amended following consideration of responses to the public consultation as shown in the table in section 8 above - this includes clarification that the hubs shown at Lea Bridge and Coronation Square in Leyton will aim to include community facilities. Viable end users will need to be identified for such community and health facilities to ensure a continued sustainable future and the Council is working with the Clinical Commissioning Group towards securing these facilities.

It’s important to note that a lot of wider services and facilities are not directly controlled by the Council. The Council is working with partners and stakeholders, such as the NHS and emergency services to appropriately plan for growth – this is the core purpose of the Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) being produced as part of the new Local Plan.

Assessments have been made of what new school places will be needed if the potential development opportunities shown in the Vision are to be realised. This will form a key part of the Local Plan review. Two new primary schools are included in the Vision proposals and shown at the Bywaters site and Leyton Mills, plus an extension to Barncroft primary school.

The Council is currently working on an Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) which will seek to define the Boroughs overall social and physical infrastructure requirements, when they are needed and who they will be delivered by. The IDP will pick up wider education provision, including early years, primary, secondary, further education and adult learning.

Funding and sites for infrastructure provision will be sought through collection of Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL), or where appropriate via Section 106 legal agreement contributions to

69

mitigate the impact of individual developments. This may include sports facilities if identified as required via the Infrastructure Delivery Plan.

There is a map of existing social assets in the area and exploring opportunities for entertainment and evening economy facilities will form part of the review of the Local Plan.

The new sports facilities and enhancements to Ive Farm will improve the whole site. It will become part of Leyton Jubilee Park. The disused athletics track will be replaced by new facilities including a 60 metre sprint track, and a landscaped fitness trail around the whole site. There is a 400 metre running track in Walthamstow and it is not therefore planned to include one at Ive Farm.

In addition, there will be a floodlit all weather football pitch, a floodlit all weather hockey and multi sports pitch and 6 beach volleyball courts.

The new pavilion, positioned in the centre of the site, will have a café, community room, changing facilities and toilets together with spectator seating. Potential customers will include all those using the sports facilities and viewing sports activities, as well as being available for community bookings, for example for children’s parties. An operational business plan has been prepared.

New signposting and wayfinding will be introduced, alongside a promotional and marketing campaign, to make sure that Ive Farm can be found easily.

It is expected that the vast majority of people using and visiting the facilities at Ive Farm will be arriving on foot, by cycle or public transport. For this reason, there are only 41 spaces in the car park.

Ive Farm will be incorporated into the Leyton Jubilee Park Management Plan and many of its facilities will be free and open to all.

9.6 Shops and Shop Front Improvements

There were some responses to the public consultation relating to improving the local retail offer (types of shops) in the Lea Bridge and Leyton area, plus requests for further shopfront improvement schemes. No changes have been made to the Vision in this respect following the public consultation, as references were already included in the Vision.

The Council is keen to work with shop retailers to improve the attractiveness of the types of shops (known as the “retail offer”) in key centres to meet residents’ expectations for high quality retailers, range in size of shops including boutiques, ATM cash machines and to develop the centres as attractive places and destinations of choice for businesses to locate and residents and visitors to spend money. The Council will explore options to improve shopfronts. Key locations to include Markhouse Corner will be identified and owner match funding contributions would be required.

Some consultation comments related to areas just outside the Vision boundary. The intention is not to exclude established communities in neighbouring areas outside the Vision boundary. The boundary was drawn to include areas with significant underused land where targeted interventions can be focused. It is expected that there would be positive ripple effects beyond

70

the Vision boundary, bringing improved connectivity, access to employment and leisure opportunities stimulating physical and environmental regeneration of the wider area. Separate regeneration projects are being developed for Bakers Arms/Leyton Green and Leyton Cricket Ground independent to the Vision.

Through the aspirations within the Vision, the Council intends to promote the image of the area and develop a longer-term strategy of engagement with landowners and shopkeepers about their ambitions and future investment, reflecting changes in the area.

Aldi have bought the ex-B&Q site to refurbish as a supermarket with planning permission granted in March 2017 and work started on site.

9.7 Access and New Links

The Vision has been amended following consideration of responses to the public consultation as shown in the table in section 8 above.

A key part of the Vision is to improve connectivity between existing Lea Bridge and Leyton communities into existing open space and the Lee Valley Regional Park. Funding will need to be identified including from the Infrastructure Plan as part of the review of the Local Plan. Any new bridges or connections would need to meet existing standards and policies e.g. being Disability Discrimination Act compliant.

Many responses were supportive of improvements to pedestrian and cycling links to and from the new leisure and employment areas around Stratford, the Lower Lea Valley and the Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park. One major existing barrier also highlighted in consultation is the lack of high quality walking and cycling provision on the links across the A12 (High Road Leyton) at Leyton station due to narrow pavements on the bridge. These proposed links are in the Vision and can facilitate conversations with developers for any proposals which come forward in advance of completion of the review of the Local Plan.

Several areas of concern and opportunity have been highlighted through this consultation and will be incorporated where possible through the review of the Local Plan. For example, noise and environmental concerns at Staffa Road have been passed on to be investigated by the Waltham Forest Neighbourhood Service and the need for ramps to the Marsh Lane footbridge over Orient Way were raised as issues and the Council has aspirations to seek improvements.

Opportunities will be taken through any individual planning applications to improve links and connections as part of urban design considerations. The Council will negotiate high quality schemes with supporting Design and Access Statements, with developers having to demonstrate that schemes will improve accessibility and permeability to and through their site, as well as ensuring adequate provision and access to key social infrastructure.

Some issues relating to step free access have been highlighted through the consultation and will be addressed where possible subject to funding and approvals being secured e.g. improved pedestrian access ramps to the Marsh Lane footbridge over Orient Way and the railway tracks.

One change to the Vision is to remove suggested changes to the junction accessing the Leyton Mills site.

71

A small number of comments referred to opening new road connections to existing industrial areas. This does not align with the Council’s sustainable transport policy to reduce reliance on the private car, and evidence suggests that opening new roads does not actually reduce congestion. Please refer to Section 9.1.1.

Since September 2015 Waltham Forest have been developing a wayfinding signage strategy as part of Enjoy Waltham Forest Scheme aimed at helping local people walk and cycle for local journeys. These wayfinding measures will include on-street maps, digital maps and signage to improve accessibility and safety.

To improve connections to and from Hackney, the Council will continue to liaise with LB of Hackney and the Lee Valley Regional Park Authority as part of the review of the Local Plan.

9.8 Urban Design and Public Realm Improvements

A number of responses were received to the Vision consultation, relating to urban design, quality of development and public realm issues. Further work on urban design and high quality public realm will be undertaken as part of the Local Plan review and no changes have been made to the Vision in this respect following consideration of responses as strong references were already included.

The Council launched its Design Charter in 2016 which sets out 10 key principles for well- designed homes. The overriding aim is to set out the commitment to achieving good design in all new housing developments. The Council wants homes built which are attractive, sustainable, inclusive, well connected and inspiring and which continue to achieve and increase high quality urban and architectural design.

The recently established Waltham Forest CABE Design Advice Panel provides independent, expert design advice on key development proposals, and encourages collaborative working with developers and applicants. This underpins the Council’s commitment to creating attractive, safe, sustainable and well-connected places for everyone in our borough. Amended wording has been added to the Vision stating that developments should be designed to create a safe and secure environment.

Detailed analysis of existing townscape, views and heritage assets will be undertaken as part of the Local Plan review. Any individual site planning applications will be considered on a case by case basis against existing adopted planning policies to ensure high quality design and materials. Individual planning applications will consider design quality and public realm implications, plus the impact on any existing buildings including heritage considerations.

Landscaping, public realm and public space improvements including tree planting are being completed as part of the Enjoy Waltham Forest programme such as the Ruckholt Road landscaping works at the Marshall Road junction.

Access to green space for the public will be dependent on the nature and scale of future development. Amenity space, will be negotiated, in the form of balconies or private gardens for individual dwellings or private communal space. Provision will also be sought, wherever possible, for public access to existing and/or new areas of greenspace for the purposes of relaxation or play for the benefit of the wider neighbourhood.

72

Further work will be undertaken to consider design options as part of the Local Plan review design evidence base work, which will include consideration of density and townscape opportunities.

9.9 Business and Work Space

Responses were received to the Vision consultation relating to improved and increased employment space. Further work will be undertaken as part of the Local Plan review. No changes have been made to the Vision in this respect following consideration of responses to the public consultation, as robust references were already included in the Vision relating to protection, retention and improvements to business workspace and jobs.

There is an economic growth shift in London towards outer areas like Lea Bridge and Leyton as activity and businesses are displaced by higher rents from inner areas such as Hackney and Camden. The Council aim through the Local Plan review to use this opportunity to shape the area with modernised sustainable business space.

The Vision contains a strong aim to retain employment land which will be considered further through the Local Plan review. Subsequent studies will be commissioned into the type and range of modern commercial floor space which could be developed. This will take into account the aspiration for densification of commercial space and any sensitive interface with residential uses.

Policies concerning affordable workspace will be considered as part of the Local Plan review and the Council will work with developers on any planning applications submitted to safeguard and enhance employment land. There are certain strong economic growth sectors - creative, advanced light manufacturing, food, production, built/sustainable environment, urban services - and the Council aims to work with organisations that can help deliver provision of modern densified employment space: investors, developers, occupiers, universities, and other institutions.

Through the Local Plan review new development should improve access to employment opportunities maximising the number and variety of jobs and apprenticeships, and improving the skills, training and employment opportunities for local residents.

Further work will be undertaken as part of the Local Plan review as the Employment Land Study (2016) shows that additional business space is required including employment floor space figures which is considered normal practice. Floor space requirements are based on estimates of Full Time Equivalent (FTE) employment levels given a ‘workspace’ is planned on how many people will occupy it at one time.

9.10 Night Time Economy including retention of Pubs

Some responses were received to the Vision consultation relating to retention and re-opening of pubs and further work will be undertaken as part of the Local Plan review. No changes have been made to the Vision in this respect following consideration of responses to the public consultation, as references were already included in the Vision.

As shown by the adoption by the Council of a Public Houses Supplementary Planning Document, pubs are recognised as important community assets with several in the Lea Bridge and Leyton

73

area already listed at the request of the local communities as Assets of Community Value (ACVs). The Vision document does not propose changes to any pubs in the Vision area.

The Council’s aspiration is to work with the owner of the Greyhound Pub to bring the building back into active use. The Antelope and the Hare and Hounds pubs are already listed as Assets of Community Value. The Council will consider use of its powers where appropriate, but it should be noted that these sites are in private ownership. The Council intends to work with private land owners on future aspirations for those pub buildings.

There is already a map of existing social assets, and exploring entertainment, cultural and evening economy opportunities in the area will form part of the review of the Local Plan. The council will consider working with local community groups including artists to improve the local area.

9.11 Metropolitan Open Land (MOL)

Numerous responses, emails and the petition were received relating to potential development on Metropolitan Open Land (MOL) which is the London policy equivalent of Green Belt. The Vision document considered four proposals that could affect existing Metropolitan Open Land (MOL):

 Ive Farm – which has already received planning permission for the creation of a new leisure hub.  Former Thames Water Site on Lea Bridge Road - is currently disused. It is entirely concreted over with no public access. The Vision suggests this site as a potential regeneration opportunity with development on the western part of the site and the return of the rest of the site to open space linking the Lea Valley north / south across Lea Bridge Road.  Lee Valley Ice Centre on Lea Bridge Road - the Lea Valley Regional Park Authority have an aspiration to redevelop the current Ice Rink to provide a state of the art regional sporting facility via the creation of a new twin pad ice rink.  Waterworks Site on Lea Bridge Road - the Vision looks at the possibility of the redevelopment of the Waterworks Centre site owned by the Lee Valley Regional Park Authority for employment and residential use.

The Lea Valley Regional Park Authority will be made aware of all comments received during the consultation including relating to the standard and running of existing facilities.

As a result, the Vision has been changed to reduce the Waterworks site and to show it as a “Possible Regeneration Opportunity” with no specific uses suggested. This brings the proposal in line with how the former Thames Water Depot site and the former Leyton Football Club site proposals are treated within the Vision.

Text has been added to the Vision about protecting MOL in most locations. Consideration of any changes to MOL designations will be taken forward as part of the Local Plan review and any release of MOL will need strong justification. Should any planning applications come forward before completion of the review of the Local Plan, any proposals would need to justify 'very special circumstances' as stated in paragraph 87-88 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

74

9.12 Flooding Issues

Several responses were received relating to potential flooding issues. The Vision has been amended following consideration of responses to the public consultation as shown in the table in section 8 above - this includes in relation to flooding. Maps have been revised and additional text added to the Vision to more clearly reflect the flood risk in parts of Lea Bridge and Leyton stating that a key objective will be to reduce flood risk and that appropriate mitigation measures will be needed.

A Strategic Flood Risk Assessment will be carried out as part of the Local Plan review. Individual schemes have to show how flood risk would be dealt with. Water supply will be assessed as part of the Infrastructure Delivery Plan and Local Plan review.

The Council will continue to work with the Environment Agency on the improvement of water courses.

10. NEXT STEPS

The key next step will be the review of the Local Plan and the Vision will inform that review including production of a borough wide Infrastructure Delivery Plan. Further engagement and consultation work will be carried out as part of the Local Plan review with local communities, stakeholders and businesses together with statutory partners, to ensure adequate provision of social infrastructure to support existing communities and businesses, as well as new residents and businesses.

The Vision, as amended following public consultation, will be promoted showing the opportunities within the area to support change to ensure sustainable vibrant communities.

Some residents expressed concerns about existing environmental problems in the area. These complaints have been forwarded to the appropriate Council department to investigate. If residents are still experiencing problems please report these using this link: https://www.walthamforest.gov.uk/service-categories/report-neighbourhood-problem

75

ANNEX

A Full report on comments received during public consultation and the Council’s responses

OVERALL VISION Response No Comments Council Response 1 I agree that it is important to reduce severance and have more walkable and cycle able neighbourhoods. However I am concerned that this regeneration will Comments noted. Please refer to lead to inappropriately high rise development around Lea Bridge, and the continued destruction of attractive 20th century industrial buildings. sections 9.2 and section 9.8 2 Generally I like the developments. Clearing out the old warehouses and disused brownfield sites. My only concern (as with planned school opposite the ice Support noted. Please refer to sections rink) is the transport links. Lea Bridge Road is solid traffic. I cycle most days but that's not always possible. Busses are incredibly slow now and reducing the 9.1-9.1.7 road space for busses with segregated cycle lanes seems a poor idea to me. The lack of any improvements to this road makes me concerned that it'll only get worse and I'll have to start heading north in order to get a train into central London.

3 No comments made 4 Leyton is a lovely area with a lot of potential, especially when it comes to roads like Church road as the look and feel is quite sad and abandoned. Although Comments noted coronation gardens shouldn't be touched as it's a lovely place as it is, and the market on a Saturday is just po sweet. 5 Leave the area alone Comment noted 6 I've been living in Leyton all my life and seeing the changes in the time cycle has been great. Would like to dream and visualise the area has been great. Comments noted. Please refer to Commuting is getting vastly better. Having new connection between Leyton and lea bridge will be great, love cycling and this will be easier to get to lea bridge sections 9.1.3 and 9.7 and Chingford on bike wonderful. 7 No comments made 8 Concerned about the existing developments that WF Council has approved such as the high rise development near Lea Bridge Station - totally out of scale in Comment noted. Please refer to relation to existing structures. section 9.2 9 Leyton has huge potential but at the moment it suffers from severe traffic issues, poor access to public transport from the central/Lea Bridge Road areas, and Support noted. Please refer to sections it is void of personality - feeling run down on most major roads. I fully support improvements to bus lanes, the opening of new stations and the development 9.1-9.1.7 of cycle ways. With the population growing at such a rapid rate, transport really needs to be addressed. That said, it should not be at the expense of people who must rely on their cars as traffic is already such a nightmare in the area and closing off cut-throughs without addressing the original traffic flow issues on the main roads only worsens the problems. I fully support the development of new central areas, with new independent cafes and shops. The area is full of young people who have small children or who Support noted. Please refer to section work from home, or people who want to meet with their neighbours and establish a sense of community - new cafes and restaurants installs pride and a 9.6 sense of community and reduces the need for people to travel elsewhere. I fully support the opening up of green spaces and the canal. Leyton feels very urban and busy and can only be improved by making access to its nearby parks Support noted. Please refer to section easier and by making those spaces more visually appealing. 9.4 My concern with the increased development is around the capacity of the existing transport network (roads and public transport) and local facilities such as Comment noted. Please refer to healthcare, gyms and sporting areas, and schools. sections 9.1-9.1.7 and 9.5 10 The area is need of a coherent development plan. But please, no cars. The vision needs to be based around public transport, cycling and walking. The Olympic Comments noted. Please refer to Park redevelopment was a huge missed opportunity, please learn the lessons. sections 9.1-9.1.7 11 The area is a hidden secret but blighted by unsightly industrial units, poorly organised junctions (Lea Bridge Road), fly-tipping and poor shop fronts. Comments noted. Please refer to 76

sections 9.1.3, 9.6 and 9.8 12 I like that the plans are ambitious and also have an environmental focus to them. The emphasis on green space is very welcome - the Lea Valley area might Support noted. Please refer to section have a lot of green space in terms of area but it never feels particularly accessible. 9.4 13 No comments made 14 As a daily cyclist and walker, I would benefit from these changes. These changes would also positively impact the pollution in the area Support noted.

15 I think there is a lot of potential to grow this area and transform it into a valuable destination of Londoners, not only for residence but also for leisure. Support noted 16 I feel it is hugely important to keep existing heritage buildings, and to make sure new buildings are well designed and aesthetically work alongside the older Comment noted. Please refer to architecture. section 9.8 This corner of Waltham Forest is crying out for better shops, with more choice. We need a good mix of high quality independent shops and some good quality Comments noted. Please refer to chain shops. We need less chicken shops and betting shops. The Food shops are generally good, but again, the choice is limited as they mostly offer the same section 9.6 products. We need better healthcare/GP's as the current ones are heavily oversubscribed. More schools are also essential. Comments noted. Please refer to section 9.5 Green spaces should be heavily protected to counteract the high density population, traffic and pollution of the area, making them more accessible is good, Please refer to sections 9.1.7, 9.4 and but not at the expense of losing the wild nature of the marshes. 9.11 A nicer walking environment is essential. Children in the area are heavily affected by the car fumes when walking. The pavements can be very narrow, and Comments noted. Please refer to walking next to the heavy traffic can be unpleasant. Wherever possible, pavements for walking should be kept as far away from cars and busses as possible, sections 9.1.3 and 9.1.7 and separated by trees or other greenery. It is important the council enforce much of what is set out in this document, rather than allowing developers to ruin a lovely part of Waltham Forest with Comments noted. Please refer to more assets to offer than many of the more desirable areas. An area linking Lea Bridge to Coppermill without having to walk on Markhouse road is section 9.7 desperately wanted by residents, as well as being able to access the marsh from Markhouse corner without using Lea Bridge Road as both these roads are heavily polluted at busy times.

17 I welcome the marsh being opened up to more people but object to further developments and leisure facilities. There seem to be a number of developments Comments noted. Please refer to that have or plan to encroach on the natural space, including the carwash (now removed) and the proposed schools development on the old Thames water section 9.11 site. The housing development appears to be extremely dense with a number of buildings over 3 stories, which is totally out of keeping with both the setting and Comment noted. Please refer to the wider area. section 9.2 Traffic on Lea Bridge Road is already terrible at peak times; a retail area would only make this worse. Comment noted. Please refer to sections 9.1-9.1.7 There are already good retail spaces at Tottenham and Stratford, where the station connects with. There is absolutely no need to create a retail destination Comment noted there. This would only increase bus journey times and pollution. 18 It looks great. I often think that Leyton high street and Leyton Mills has huge potential but it all looks quite ugly at the moment. I like the plans, they are well Support noted thought out. 19 It is very grotty at the moment - I want to see shops, bars, cafes and homes. I also want improved cycling routes. Comments noted. Please refer to sections 9.1.3 and 9.6 20 Not enough details for me to decide either way Comment noted

77

21 The area is in need of huge but well-considered redevelopment. Approving apartment blocks on a piece-meal basis will create many future problems. Also, Comments noted. The Vision is the area needs better transport links that do not rely on cars so cycling and better-connected buses will need to be a key part of that. intended to guide development and prevent a piecemeal approach to development. Please refer to sections 9.1.4and 9.1.3 22 If even a good percentage of the proposals happen, it can only be a good thing for regenerating the areas planned. Support noted 23 No comments made 24 I agree that this area needs some regeneration, but I hope that it keeps some of its original heritage. I wish this area would also go up to the Bakers Arms area. Comments noted. Please refer to The Bakers Arms used to be a community pub, but now it’s just a betting shop. Every corner there is betting shops around here, I feel it's really bad for the sections 9.6 and 9.8 community that our best heritage buildings are used for gambling.

25 It needs it. Support noted 26 The area has enormous potential, but is currently very 'tired', with many people not knowing about its 'gems'. I wouldn't be at all surprised if some of even the Support noted most local of residents were not aware of how close they are to so much open green space. I live on Church Road, and I'd love it if there was more than just industrial areas / builders merchants / bookies and low quality shops in the immediate area. I think you've got pretty much everything spot on in your vision. I particularly agree that Markhouse Corner has the potential to be a hub.

27 I agree that this area needs some regeneration, but I hope that it keeps some of its original heritage. I wish this area would also go up to the Bakers Arms area. Comments noted. Please refer to The Bakers Arms used to be a community pub, but now it’s just a betting shop. Every corner there is betting shops around here, I feel it’s really bad for the sections 9.6 and 9.8 community that our best heritage buildings are used for gambling. 28 You are putting to many people in a small area, the overall parking is bad now, and how will it cope with all the extra traffic and people. Comment noted. Please refer to sections 9.1.2 and 9.5 29 I think the area has the potential to be developed in a positive way provided the developments are not allowed to diminish/degrade public space and some of Comment noted. Please refer to the money is put back in to making the area a great place to live, shop, work or visit. section 9.8 I also think the idea of making New Spitalfields Market as more of a destination for consumers is a great idea. Support noted I like the ideas about making more from the underused assets we already have (enhanced high streets) and providing better links to the Lea Valley & Olympic Support noted Park (which are both amazing but seem cut off by busy unwelcoming roads). Strengthening and enhancing the current local centres is really important to ensure the whole community benefits from the changes and are not cut-off from Comments noted. Please refer to improvements. In particular new/extended facilities such as schools or health centres should be integrated in to the communities they serve. section 9.5 It is really important that creeping encroachment in to the open spaces is not allowed as once gone this land will never be returned. Comments noted. Please refer to sections 9.4 and 9.11 New developments around the Lea Valley should be used to improve access, enhance and extend it (where possible). Where sites have previously been closed Comment noted. Please refer to off for specific purposes they should be bought back to being open/proving public access wherever possible - otherwise these further block off and fragment section 9.7 the valley. Cycling and walking need to be central parts of the transport strategy around the areas because there's great public transport link and the roads are already Comments noted. Please refer to completely jammed with cars! Also we need to build healthy active neighbourhoods where people walk and cycle as many journeys as possible (including section 9.1.3 walking to connect to public transport links).

78

Regarding the name, I know you need an umbrella name, but for the public please refer to the areas individually (possibly with 'Lea Valley Eastside' as the Comments noted. The Vision document subtitle). Otherwise it's another anonymous thing which people won't really understand! Also, we need to talk about Leyton because part of the purpose is to will be called the “Lea Bridge and raise the profile of the area! Leyton Vision” to reflect responses to the public consultation. 30 Are along lea brief eye now on s dangerous and not ideal for cycling. Lea Bridge station could be vastly improved and lose the cycle lane on the pavement Comments noted. Please refer to sections 9.1.3 and 9.1.5 31 Any vision for improvement and regeneration is welcomed, however I have not put strongly agree because I do not believe that the plans for the vision will be Comments noted. Please refer to supported by improved transport infrastructure. Within the Lea Bridge vision there is an emphasis on creating housing and a business area; with that brings sections 9.1-9.1.7 even more people who need to use public transport or more traffic on the roads. The area is already hugely congested and travel in weekday mornings and evenings is truly a nightmare and is a cause of huge frustrations. I've heard people say that this is a big turnoff from the area. So whilst the plans are good, they MUST be backed up by adequate investment in cutting down traffic within the area and providing more transport links, and by that I mean more than re- opening Lea Bridge station (which with the plans for the new housing will again just become another congested route).

32 Lea Bridge Eastside has huge potential. It's the gateway to the borough from Hackney and it needs to draw in the overflow from Clapton and seamlessly link Comment noted. Please refer to up the two boroughs. section 9.7 33 Leyton Mills is very tired and an extremely poor use of space. Comment noted 34 I think you've struck a careful balance of more development while respecting the non-residential uses, and seeking to enhance and value the ecological Support noted. Please refer to section features of the area. You note the opportunities for enticing tech and creative businesses from hackney, Camden etc. who are priced out - however, think 9.9 about what type of spaces these business want, be it co-working or the growing spaces they're looking for, rather than straightforward Cat A offices. Also consider links to universities and STEM led spins offs in life sciences and bio-tech. These are high value, high quality businesses - the link to Cambridge/Stanstead could be instructive here so there may be some learning on this. 35 I hope you don't make a total mess just like Walthamstow, closing off roads that are needed to dissipate the traffic and leaving endless ques on the 4 Comment noted. Please refer to remaining roads open, and increasing the pollution massively on those roads and the area, yeah that really helped everyone! sections 9.1-9.1.7 36 I absolutely do not agree with developing any of the Metropolitan Open lands of the Lea Valley. The plan to put housing on the former golf course near Comments noted. Please refer to Waterworks must simply be stopped now. It lies adjacent to the which despite chronic pollution remains a valuable habitat for fish and other section 9.11 wildlife. Walthamstow Council seem bent on monetising green space in the Borough when their efforts should instead be looking at Brownfield sites for redevelopment. 37 This over development of a Victorian area of London is totally out of place. Removing the volley ball courts and other sporting facilities, removing allotments, One of the objectives of the Vision was building over the Leyton Marches, massively increasing traffic and pollution and making the lives of residents a nightmare. This is all to bring in income to the to give residents an early opportunity council and does nothing for the people of Leyton. As we have no resident councillors or a resident MP we are getting dumped on to increase income at all to comment on how the Leyton and costs. Lea Bridge area may change in the short to medium term. Volley ball courts and other facilities at The Score would be replaced at Ive Farm. It is not proposed to remove allotments. Please refer to sections 9.1-9.1.7, 9.5 and 9.11 It is already impossible to park around the area, streets have become rat runs and pollution levels are raising. Comment noted. Please refer to sections 9.1.2 and 9.1.7

79

38 We cannot build on the marshes. It would destroy precious wildlife. Be more innovative. Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.11 39 You simply cannot build on the marshes, it needs to be kept protected Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.11 40 This is an area with great potential which suffers from some geographical /infrastructure isolation. I would be keen to see more pedestrian/cycle bridges over Comments noted. Please refer to the north/south railway lines connecting the areas to lee valley park/QE Olympic park and Hackney. I would like to see TfL & network rail provide funding to sections 9.1.3-9.1.5 and 9.7 reopen hall farm curve railway to allow Chingford - Stratford rail services to run. This would be of benefit to proposed lee Valley Eastside but also many residents/businesses in the greater Waltham Forest area as connections to transport and commercial facilities in Stratford and beyond would be improved. 41 We don't want building on our marshes. The marshes are protected land. Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.11 42 Leyton and Walthamstow marshes are a vital amenity space to an already major urban area and need to be protected. Any developments on or nearby the Comments noted. Please refer to marshes will be detrimental to this amenity. section 9.11 Please do not copy what developers have done to and around the Olympic Park by building lots of high rise buildings. Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.2 43 There are very few areas in this proximity to central London that offer such a wonderfully wild feeling, with such a variety of plant and animal life. The area is Comments noted. Please refer to so very important for the enrichment not only of our lives as adults working in the city, but those with children - it's a place where people of all ages can enjoy section 9.11 the changing of the seasons, a sense of discovery and a break from the building work that is going on everywhere else. The proposal to build on any of the sites within this swathe of land are completely unnecessary. There is no need for any new retail locations, offices or homes in that area, when there are pre- existing sites that need work and regeneration. The estates in that are literally on the edge of this proposed development - in particular Kingsmead - could do with investment rather than wasting the money on flats that no one can afford, on one of the only 'wild' bits of land left in the area. 44 Whilst it is great to see a coherent vision for this end of Waltham Forest, I think you are wrong in one respect, which is your proposal to build on what is Comments noted. Please refer to currently open green space. You've highlighted on page 19 how important high quality green and open spaces are, including better connectivity. There are sections 9.7 and 9.11 two places in your proposal where you are actively working against your stated guiding principle. The first is the current Thames Water site. When it is vacated, it should be returned to park usage. This would increase connectivity between Hackney and Waltham Forest on the south side of the lea bridge road, which is currently a narrow and crowded pavement. It would also improve access between Middlesex Filter Beds and Waterworks, which is currently blocked. The second is that you are proposing to build on open green parkland surrounding the Waterworks Nature Reserve visitor centre. This is entirely counter to your stated guiding principle, and a completely inconsistent approach. I regularly walk in this area and consider it a clearly delineated part of the wider parkland. Both of these areas are designated as Metropolitan Open Land and so should not be built upon. The London Plan (section 7.17) states "The policy guidance of paragraphs 79-92 of the NPPF on Green Belts applies equally to Metropolitan Open Land (MOL)." ... "Appropriate development should be limited to small scale structures to support outdoor open space uses and minimise any adverse impact on the openness of MOL" 45 I think the overall plans are good, I really welcome the improved green spaces and improved transport links. However I would really like to see some spaces Support and comments noted. Please for affordable workspace and social enterprise start-up space. I really feel the community needs active community spaces to knit the many different people refer to section 9.9 together who live here. I really feel the community needs active community spaces to knit the many different people together who live here. Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.5 The new development will radically increase property prices and there is a really danger that the new development could increase inequality in Waltham Comment noted. Please refer to Forest. section 9.3

80

46 Having moved to East London from West London, which has been in constant construction and demolition for around 9 years now, with developers stating Comments noted. Please refer to this will create better opportunities and more affordable housing for residents. But in actual fact what has happened is so called luxury flats are being built on sections 9.3 and 9.4 every available space which is pricing out a lot of residents and lots of trees and green spaces are being cut down and built over at an alarming rate. Moving to East London, Walthamstow, I see something preserved here which is sadly becoming a declining thing in West London, a happy community with people of all cultures coexisting together harmoniously, lots of green spaces for the community to thrive within. As a new comer to the area, I would not wish for East London what is happening in West London and so this is why I strongly disagree with the proposed new development.

47 There is so much wasted low industrial space here, and if cleaned up the parks, river and streams could make this a very pleasant (and well connected) area, Comment noted. Please refer to one that would better connect Walthamstow with Stratford and Leyton section 9.7 48 I am invested in the regeneration of the area for the benefit of local residents because I am one! I particularly like the themes around the use/creation of Support noted green space, improving the range of facilities on offer within walking distance, creating distinct localities and ensuring that development is economically and environmentally sustainable 49 No comment made 50 Don't build on the marshes. Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.11 51 All three areas are in need of regeneration and offer great opportunities for improvement. Support noted 52 Although there are some positive aspects within the proposals, there is too much development proposed especially around the Lea Bridge area. I am very Comments noted. Please refer to much against building on open spaces such as parts of the marshes, around the Waterworks and the old Thames Water site. The facilities do not support such sections 9.2 and 9.11 a large amount of development and there is a danger of destroying the positive aspects of this area. 53 I disagree with any further buildings on our green areas. The council has built on many of our green areas now, which has been disappearing from the Comments noted. Please refer to borough at an alarming rate. Families need green spaces - by getting rid of majority of our green spaces the council will be exacerbating and encouraging, section 9.11 mental health problems, breakdown in family life and anti-social behaviour. The new builds has seen a dramatic increase in the borough's population, however, the council is not providing any increase in school places (not just primary Comments noted. Please refer to but secondary and colleges), green spaces for children to play in, or hospital, GP places. Where are the children supposed to play and have a childhood in? In sections 9.4 and 9.5 the intermittent pocket sized parks the council has been providing? 54 Response from Thames21 included in 3rd Party Representations Please refer to section 4 55 Whilst I agree that the area needs significant development and definitely more transport links. It seems that the plans are to build on every spare piece of land Comments noted. Please refer to in Lea Bridge and it just seems that it will be overdeveloped and therefore more congested than it is now. There are people living in this area now who cannot sections 9.1-9.1.7 easily get to Leyton town centre or to Leyton Mills without walking over 2 kilometres or getting two buses and going on a 30+ minute circuitous journey. In these plans there is still no plan for a bus link from Lea Bridge to the Olympic park; from the very new lea bridge station link it’s a 30 minute walk to the park/copper box/ here east. Or pay £9 a day in the car park. To get to the more northern parts of the borough is also currently very difficult. E.g. to get to the much vaunted Feel Good Centre, how do residents of Lea bridge do that? Multiple buses. It is easier to travel to Hackney and Islington than to get to other parts of Waltham Forest. There’s nothing about improving that. The density of the building proposals there seem very odd and will put extreme pressure of the limited transport systems there at present. Again the proposal made no indication of Greater Anglia intending to increase the frequency of the trains which are currently 2 per hour. How will that work with all these new residents? As said this areas is full of dead ends and no entry roads, I don't see how traffic is going to flow in this area, particularly as the lea bridge road is currently being significantly narrowed and bus lanes removed. However I welcome any attention to this part of the borough as it is always forgotten as its seen as neither Walthamstow or Leyton The amenities such as a new health centre and a bus link to Leyton town centre are needed NOW, even without the proposed development. Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.5

81

56 I like the proposals. I would like to see something done to help with the following: Rat runs through Leyton park lane. Loitering in seating areas on St Georges Support noted. Please refer to sections Road/St Mary's Road. There doesn't seem to be much clarity on what a station in Ruckholt Road would do. Housing is, obviously, expected however please be 9.1 9.1.7 aware that Leyton station is already overcrowded in rush hour and so proposals should acknowledge this I'd like something in place to improve the nature of businesses in the area and hope your proposals will do something to address this.

Leyton would benefit hugely from better links to Hackney/. Perhaps extend the bus routes? Also consider building housing all along the area where Comments noted. Please refer to temple mills/new Spitalfields are to help connect the areas. sections 9.1.4and 9.7. The land at Temple Mills and Orient Way is either the Eurostar depot (retention of which has been confirmed by Eurostar) or is protected park land. Where appropriate on other sites in the locality, opportunities for housing or redevelopment are shown indicatively in the Vision. It was disheartening when the units in Leyton Mills that were marked 'florist, greengrocer, etc.' became a giant Poundland. Comment noted It's unclear if the proposals protect Leyton marshes? Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.11 57 I like the idea of a greener area, which will be more pleasant to live in. It needs something like this. I would want to be involved with the details. For example, Support noted. Please refer to sections proposals to redevelop/build bridges over the railway and river lea flood relief channel need to be designed with cycling in mind (the current bridges have 9.1.3 and 9.7 steps only). The connection between Clementina Road and Orient Way must be for cycling only, to avoid rat runs. I can see that the council has made compromises by allowing some development on metropolitan land. I am not a fan of this, but will accept the proposals as Comments noted. Please refer to is due to the need to use the land. More land cannot be developed in this way. section 9.11 For residential developments, these should be restricted to a maximum of 4 storeys high, to fit in with the local area and should be designed with the Comment noted. Please refer to environment in mind - e.g. green rooves. section 9.2 58 We need green areas around Hackney and in general around London. All the marshes are protected areas, important for humans and animals. Don't build and Comments noted. Please refer to destroy another area in London. sections 9.4 and 9.11 59 Overall I think a vision is needed to masterplan the area, and I think this plan is generally well designed. I have reservations over the feasibility of the Support noted. Please refer to section "layering" that is proposed. In the industrial areas of Argall and Rigg Approach, there are a lot of heavy industry businesses that do not mix with residential 9.9 neighbours, so I can’t see how the plans can envisage retaining current employment land at the same time as building large new mixed use blocks alongside. My business is located on Rigg Approach. From the plans it seems that this street is slated to be completely redeveloped. If this is correct, the business owners here need to be made aware of this as early as possible. It is a very worrying prospect for most businesses to have to face the reality of having to relocate.

60 Waltham forest is becoming overcrowded and green open areas are being built on or close to. Waltham Forest as the name suggests was and should continue Comments noted. Please refer to to be an area with lush greenery. section 9.4 All the plans so far including Walthamstow Central has been to get rid of leisure areas and build high rises. Years ago a programme of taking down high rise Comments noted. Please refer to flats was started; tower blocks were taken down and proper family dwellings were built. Waltham Forest seems to be going backwards. section 9.2 What about services and congestion, roads are full of traffic and pollution, schools are overcrowded and impersonal; moreover, the NHS services in this area Comments noted. Please refer to are failing. sections 9.1.1, 9.1.7 and 9.5 61 Please see below - Reference to comments made in Leyton section 62 Some of the areas mentioned have been starved of investment and upgrading for many years and are, frankly, an eyesore. One particular example is the area Comments noted. Please refer to around Leaside near the reopened Lea Bridge Station. section 9.8 82

63 This area remains grotty yet it has a lot of potential. There are neighbouring areas which are lovely now and I feel this could happen here too. Comment noted 64 The area is currently grubby yet it has a lot of potential - see Clapton and certain areas of Waltham Forest for good examples of regeneration. Good quality Comments noted. Please refer to housing, if indeed that is what it is, could bring a renewed vigour to the area. Improving the appearance of some of the retail units will significantly improve sections 9.3 and 9.6 the aesthetic of the area. It would be good if smaller artisan industries were encouraged and artists given Soave here too. Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.9 65 There are enough houses & flats in Waltham Forest don't need any more houses or flats built Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.3 66 No comments made 67 Although I have a address my street is a finger into the Leyton area behind Leyton High Rd and I regularly use the local amenities and the Lea Comments noted. Please refer to Valley Park . 1. The proposals do not seem to have plans for a new bridge to replace the narrow existing Lea Bridge, how will the roads and the bridge cope sections 9.1-9.1.7 with the additional extra traffic at this bottle neck 2. LBWFs record of large scale developments aesthetically is pretty poor. Leyton Mills is awful as a shopping centre and place to visit. It’s been thrown up and Comments noted. Please refer to looks tired and shabby. The Paper Mill area at the back of Blackhorse Lane isn't much better and the Walthamstow shopping centre with the grey brick is very section 9.8 dreary and soviet style. If you are going to build large-scale you need to invest in decent brick and more expensive finish 3. The Lea Valley Regional Park needs to be protected and not nibbled at. By all means replace. Current amenities which have outlived their scheduled life Comments noted. Please refer to but don't encroach on a vibrant wildlife space part so its charm although it is obviously managed it doesn't look manicured. section 9.11 4. Waltham Forest is very densely populated and my are can feel quite claustrophobic we need the green space protected build fewer and low rise units. Comments noted. Please refer to sections 9.2, 9.4 and 9.11 5. Are the population projections right? Many LBWF local schools were expanded under duress and are now finding that they have excess places which has Comments noted. Please refer to had a detrimental impact on their budgets and sustainability. Even if higher earning professionals are attracted to the area through new developments as section 9.5 part of a regeneration strategy they are unlikely to stay and have their children schooled in LBWF so the size and number of bedrooms in the units needs to be assessed carefully. 6 I don't like the name as the Lea Valley extends from Amwell to Limehouse so it doesn't really give a sense of specific place in Leyton. Comment noted. The Vision document will be called the “Lea Bridge and Leyton Vision” rather than Lea Valley Eastside to reflect responses to the public consultation. 68 This is outrageous. My family have just recently moved to the borough for the single reason that we can enjoy plenty of green space, and some of the best Comments noted. Please refer to London has to offer. It would be sad to see Waltham Forest go the same way as our old neighbourhood in Hackney, where the council have done everything sections 9.8 and 9.11 they can to build ugly, unnecessary and badly built new buildings in every spare square inch they can get their hands on. It's the reason we left and decided to settle in Waltham Forest. 69 I think that the current area around Leyton Mills is a bad gateway to the area, and is particularly bad for pedestrians and cyclists. It would be much better to Comments noted. Please refer to have a proper neighbourhood here which would make the area feel much more human scale, rather than an island designed solely for cars. sections 9.1.3 and 9.8 70 Lea bridge could be both scenic and historic unfortunately mediocre development over last 150 years have ruined it now looks boring, rundown + low class Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.8 71 I can’t wait for some good cafes, gym and for there to be better health facilities and better links to large open spaces Comments noted. Please refer to sections 9.4, 9.5, 9.6 and 9.7 72 Whilst I agree there is a need to regenerate the area my concern is the potential loss of green space and loss of local jobs from moving local businesses Comment noted. Please refer to sections 9.4, 9.9 and 9.11

83

73 No comments made 74 I am concerned about green spaces being used for development in suburban areas. The area in the Lee Valley designated as Municipal open spaces should not Comments noted. Please refer to be built upon. It is a valuable area for a wildlife corridor and is a flood plain as well. There is a creep of public land and use gradually being privatised under the section 9.11 and 9.12 umbrella of providing homes. The proposed development is obscured by 'artists view' drawings and rather crass diagrams which do not represent actual changes and therefore are misleading to people like myself genuinely trying to work out whether changes represented are reasonable for the public good.

75 Having read the vision document I can see that building a new twin pad ice centre and building dwellings on the waterworks is part of the future plans for the Comments noted. Please refer to area. This is a gross miss-use of Metropolitan land. With the new developments further up Lea Bridge Road and the new developments along the river, most section 9.11 of which are extremely high-density, the open land is needed more than ever. It is East London's Green lung and yet LVRPA seem hell bent on cashing in and building in as much of it a possible. We don't want these new developments; we just want some open space that we can enjoy. You wouldn't see this happening at the Royal Parks- so why should the residents of Hackney and Waltham Forest constantly have its MOL constantly under threat? The recent opening of a car wash in the ice skating rink car park was another example of how distant LVRPA is from the local residents. There is plenty of brown field sites in the vicinity- develop them instead! Once another piece of the Lea Valley is built on- it won't ever be coming back- and it keeps getting sliced off bit by bit! 76 The marshes belong to everyone. They are the lungs of East London. People use them for travel, recreation, exercise and more. They should not be used Comments noted. Please refer to commercially. They are a common treasury for all not to be divided, segmented or enclosed, sold or built upon expensive apartments on. Expensive section 9.11 apartments which are beyond the reach of most of Waltham Forest residents. 77 I particularly like the idea of making the green spaces that are there more accessible and visible, the greener the better. The area is currently pretty grotty so Support noted. Please refer to sections the plans sound like a positive improvement. It’s good that the regen is building in existing industry and heritage of the area overall I feel the Olympic Park 9.4, 9.7 and 9.8 area has been really successful so if the regen is going to be influenced by that I believe this is positive 78 All the areas in and around Leyton are lacking in greenery and suffer from massive pollution problems - you can taste the c02 in the air. Adding greenery to Comments noted. Please refer to these areas will improve them massively. Waltham Forest is always said to be the greenest borough - it doesn't feel like that in Leyton! sections 9.1.7 and 9.4 79 No comments made 80 We can't wait for this to happen, and very much hope it does! Currently this area is just a main artery into London, and not a living space. Rejuvenating and Support noted improving the lea bridge road area is a no brainer and needs to be done. The new station will breathe life into the area but there's currently nothing to do here. It's currently a no mans land, sandwiched between lovely Clapton/ Chatsworth Rd and Walthamstow. The Lea Bridge Rd/ Church Rd area currently have nothing to offer residents, which is crazy because so many people live here, and even more young professionals will be coming to live here due to escalating house prices in Hackney etc. 81 Thoughtful designs taking into consideration a range of issues which affect the local population. Support noted 82 While there are some amazing facilities and green spaces around in this area, it still bears the scars of years of underinvestment, and has been subjected to Comment noted terrible planning. 83 No comments made 84 Response from Sport England included in Stakeholders Responses Comment noted. Please refer to section 3 85 Very pleased to see improvements planned for Leyton station, hopefully to improve accessibility and space, and investment in the area in general. Support noted. Please refer to section 9.1.5 86 No comments made 87 No comments made 88 No comments made 89 No comments made 90 No comments made

84

91 I have just learnt this morning - Tuesday 17 January 2017 - that due to the rezoning of Connaught Close we will no longer be able to store our tools in the Comments noted. The Vision does not garage at 1 Connaught Close and the ground floor will have to be residential. Without safe secure tool storage the group that started in the 1990's will have to propose any changes to the Connaught be disbanded and the valuable nature conservation and countryside skills that we teach/use will no longer be performed in LB Waltham Forest. Learning Close site. about the rezoning at such a late date means that LBCV has not been able to attend any of the consultation and engagement opportunities/events to put our views/needs forward. The maps did not seem to extend the redevelopments west of the flood relief channel to include Connaught Close. Such high development will cast shadows on nature reserves and public spaces - What are the results of the sun and shadow analysis of these developments Comment noted. Please refer to with their tall blocks? section 9.2

92 There are some things that look good. I feel that the area covered by the document has been in need of regeneration. There is very little focus as a Support noted. Please refer to sections community in the area and although there are many businesses I feel that these would be supported with regeneration in the area. I also like the focus on 9.2, 9.4, 9.7, 9.8, 9.9 and 9.11 making the Lea Valley more accessible and opening up the river so people can walk along it. I also like the fact that you seem to be considering what buildings and resources that you already have that are assets and so could be kept albeit with investment to bring them back to life. My concern is ensuring that the green space is protected and that any development that is planned does not spoil the very important green space. So the development must be done in a sympathetically and not with buildings that dominate the green space and neighbouring communities. I am particularly concerned to see what will happen around the waterworks as I understand that there are plans to develop around that area. I would strongly oppose losing any current green space to development. I would also like to ensure that all the development is sustainable and built for low energy living and working. 93 Leyton Marshes needs to be kept as an open green space to support health and wellbeing in Waltham Forest. Obesity and Mental Health should be a high Comments noted. Please refer to priority for Waltham Forest Council. Taking away open green spaces will put pressure on the residents of Leyton, Clapton, Hackney. That is a lot of residents section 9.11 that have credible durability towards an already eradicating council. 94 The local area has many opportunities for improvements to all use classes. Public realm improvements should be prioritized by the council. Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.8 95 We need to be told where the previous vision (the Northern Area Olympic Fringe Area Action Plan) has been achieved or not. The starting point shown by the Comments noted. It is stated on the historical maps tells us what happened in practice, but doesn't show what the council originally intended for the area. How will the council enable the vision first page of the Vision that document for the Thames Water site as a regeneration opportunity when the site is now owned by the government for schools. "renews the work previously undertaken on the un-adopted, 2011 Northern Olympic Fridge Area Action Plan". The Vision has updated the NOF AAP to reflect the current situation.

96 Very enthusiastic that the area receives investment that joins together all the facilities that are already available. A lot of the green spaces currently feel Comments noted. Please refer to unsafe or inaccessible - and when you do visit them, they can be hard to reach with few facilities. Leyton feels like it has so much potential and has received so section 9.4 little attention compared to neighbouring Walthamstow. Those plans look as though they will open up the entire area, make it attractive to visitors, bring in investment and improved recreational facilities. My main concern is that this development would be council lead, rather than lead by the private sector.

97 Needs redevelopment of this great part of East London. Keep the marshes/open spaces accessible and wild. Clean the rivers. Comments noted. Council continue to work with the EA on improvement of water courses. Please refer to sections 9.11 and 9.12 98 No comments made 99 Having just moved to Lea Bridge Road it is clear the area is in need of improvement. Lea Bridge Road is run down and will get worse unless a significant Comments noted. Please refer to investment is made to improve the facilities for local residents (retail etc.) and the general appearance of the area. The new station will create more footfall sections 9.6 and 9.8 for local businesses / shops in the area and this should be taken advantage of. I particularly like the use of the waterfront for the Lea Bridge area. 100 I agree with improving the area generally, as it is in need of regeneration. I hope that the area will not be overdeveloped in terms of housing, as services such Support noted. Please refer to sections as transport & health are already under pressure. 9.1-9.1.7 and 9.5 85

I would welcome more retail but hope that it will be of the right type. Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.6 Improvements for cyclists should not have an adverse effect on other traffic, which has got much worse in the last few years. Comment noted. Please refer to sections 9.1-9.1.7 101 Leyton is dominated by the busy A112 anything to make the area greener is a positive move Comment noted. Please refer to sections 9.1-9.1.7, 9.4 and 9.8 102 I feel it is good to have a "Vision" but it would have been better to inform people of why we need the "Vision" e.g. The London Housing Plan and the Comment noted. Additional wording Governments plans on housing. has been included on p. 8 stating that the Vision is "helping to deliver the government's growth plans and housing targets for London". 103 I'm glad to see some sort of vision, instead of random developments popping up without any sort of plan. Support noted 104 No comments made 105 I am appalled at the proposal to take away MOL at the pitch and put/ waterworks. I think this is disgraceful and an absolute betrayal of the public trust. These Comments noted. Please refer to lands are precious to us and our children, how dare the Council and Lea Valley Park propose to permanently take this away and set an ugly precedent for the section 9.11 future. 106 The marshes are protected land and I am alarmed to discover that Lee Valley Regional Park Authority, who are meant to protect the land, are considering Comments noted. Please refer to selling it off for such a horrific 'regeneration' plan. The area is already overloaded due to the new flats along the river on Lea Bridge Road. section 9.11 The traffic is horrendous, there parking is even worse and, what was once a sanctuary of nature for Londoners and their families is at the risk of being Comment noted. Please refer to destroyed. The area does not need regeneration - it is wonderful as it is. This is a horrendous plan fuelled by the desire for profit over everything else and it sections 9.1-9.1.7 has to be opposed at all costs. 107 Please consider that one of the qualities of "a better place to live" for all is one that cannot be bought or built but is naturally occurring and irreplaceable. Comments noted. Please refer to Please find an alternative, less cherished space for new housing. There have been recent reports about concerns for mental health in Britain. Spending time in section 9.11 natural environments is key to mental wellbeing. Please keep Lea Marshes unmolested by development. 108 The proposed development of the land surrounding the waterworks centre is unconscionable and should not be allowed. Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.11 109 Its Green credentials: mixed use, human scale, encouragement of public transport use, walking, cycling, food production, ready access to open, natural, Comment noted undeveloped spaces. 110 No comments made 111 I reside in a flat at 15 Villiers Close. These building are out of date. Very cold no insulation, have been fighting to get rid of mould for 5 years now. Concern noted. Your comments have Unfortunately it keeps on, coming back. Water keeps on leaking from the above flat. As a tenant living in one of these flat I really tired and frustrated cause been forwarded to L&Q with a when you report to L&Q all they do is painting within months the mould comes back again. Really need new sustainable and affordable home. suggestion that residents on the estate could be updated about any investment or improvements plans. 112 Dear Sir or Madam, Please don’t build on Leyton Marshes. Everywhere in England green spaces are being destroyed by property developers. This includes Comments noted. Please refer to green belts and now Metropolitan Open Land. London and England needs its green spaces otherwise it is not going to be England. section 9.11

86

113 I've filled this in before and I put 'disagree' as I didn't think the aspects I am unsure about would be registered as negative if I didn't. However after some more Comments and support noted. Please looking at the plans I think there are lots of good things, I just think it's a shame there are some very unpopular aspects also included. So I'm giving some more refer to section 9.6 feedback now after some reflection. I would also like to thank you for the engagement you have done at various events. It will probably take a bit of time to build up trust with people as there have been many years when no thought was given to the Lea Bridge area and recent planning decisions have been done with zero community involvement. I think it's a shame that the plan doesn't include the Markhouse Road corner with Lea Bridge Road as well as the Church Road one, this seems an odd place to draw the line when that whole crossroads needs massive improvements and won't look great if only half of it is done. The Leyton FC ground has intentionally been left to disrepair over the past few years and it is important that we keep something for the community there. As Comments noted. Please also see the owner has not allowed football to be played, there is no evidence that football on the site would not be popular if brought back again. Also we need to be sections 9.4 and 9.11. very careful about developments on the site that could directly or indirectly threaten the pub next door. I would be less concerned by the Starlight Suite / Saffron kitchen going elsewhere as they are not really engaged with the local community and the large events that take place there cause parking problems both from the use of the football pitch and also on local streets. It is a great shame that the Waterworks site has caused such controversy in the vision and this is clearly an unpopular move. I hope that this aspect can be amended as it could easily damage the good intentions in the rest of the document. It's great that the Antelope and the Greyhound are mentioned and I hope the council can engage with the Greyhound owner who seems keen to re-open at Comments noted. Please refer to some point. I'm a bit surprised and disappointed that the Hare & Hounds pub isn't specifically mentioned as this is such an important part of the community section 9.10 and is also an ACV. Any pubs owned by pubcos need protecting by all of us as they are more likely to sell them off to developers. The area definitely needs some smartening up and improvements to shop fronts would be a great positive step, along with better access to the marshes Comments noted. Please refer to especially for buggies and disabled people. sections 9.6 and 9.7 114 I agree that a new vision for the area is great. However there is very little offered to help local people. The marshes are the lungs of this area, a real rare Comments noted. Please refer to beauty to find in an overpopulated area, where emissions from Lea Bridge Road are at an illegal rate. There are so few places left in London where you can sections 9.1.7, 9.5 and 9.11 escape, with rising mental health this is essential, to take away green areas of the marshes, a sanctuary for so many people, would be criminal and depremental to the wildlife that this there.

There is chance for a fantastic new visionary of housing to be built on industrial areas. I see nothing proposed for co-housing projects, nor buildings being Comments noted. Please refer to built that are self-sufficient and ecologically built. What I suspect are hideous tiny developments that eco Olympic Park, soulless and unaffordable. sections 9.3 and 9.8. Retail - Tescos, Starbucks, the usual suspects will move in, as there is nothing to suggest any of the retail space will be available for small start-up companies, Comments noted. Please refer to or restaurants echoing the soulless ones stuck along the Olympic Park. With the destruction of , and being situated in an area of a high sections 9.5, 9.6, 9.9 and 9.10. The concentration of artists, and most graduates now starting their own companies, there is little to support this. Where is innovative, live / work units. We want Council support community led organic, fresh healthy food, encouraging companies such as The Grocery, Harvest in. What co-operative supermarkets, businesses will be encouraged. I regeneration projects where returned from Ithaca in NY State, and many of the shops there are community owned. Looking at Blackhorse Road and the success of workshops that have appropriate. The proposal to amend been made there. Turning Earth are setting up in Lammas Road. Where is opportunity to create a sense of a real community? We need housing that has the junction access to the Leyton Mills shared facilities, not just a gym, but a real new way of living. Co-working spaces? Opportunities for individuals to set up new cafes / businesses / shops. I site has been removed as this would see nothing of this. Rental of business units should remain with Waltham Forest and not private landlords, thus able to keep costs down low. Allow a have affected allotment land. business (look at Oxo Tower model) or the successful re-vamp of the building Central Parade at Walthamstow Central, where start-ups are given low-price rent to start a business for a year. This is a real chance to create something so unique. If you visit Berlin, Amsterdam, Netherlands, Scandinavia, we are so behind here in London with creative, co-working, start-up company spaces. With looming Brexit we will lose so many of the diverse people we have here to other cities. Really need to set up something totally unique, not just another 'dull' redevelopment with pretty pictures. The Antelope Pub has been empty now for 2-years, squatted and now turned into hideous flats, a compulsive purchase to give this back to the community. Further compulsive purchases on shops that have been converted into residential should also be done. Allotments - How many are to be built and where - the map isn't clear. I have been on the waiting list for 10-years and having community led allotments are an incredible way to incorporate everyone. Look at St Werbergh's in Bristol, a fantastic self-built community, incredible cafe, allotments, unique warehouses, industrial start-ups that are there. There is nothing mentioned on how the traffic is to be tackled. It can take 30-mins from Church Road to reach Lea Bridge Roundabout during rush hour, as Comments noted. Please refer to traffic is coming straight from A406, filtering into town. sections 9.1-9.1.7

87

115 The proposals for Leyton do not cover the more northern and southern part of this area. Although Council investment has taken place at Bakers Arms and Comments noted. Please refer to along the part of High Road Leyton around the library, the remaining parts of the High Road (towards Stratford and Bakers Arms) also require significant section 9.6 investment. The one way section of the High Road between Church Road and Grange Park Road is particularly unattractive and run down. Although some investment is occurring in the Council owned Leyton Sports Ground, longer term funding for improvements and repairs (particularly to the Comments noted. Please refer to Grade II listed cricket pavilion) has not yet been obtained. I consider the area of Leyton covered by the vision document should therefore be extended. section 9.5 and 9.6. Separate proposals Particularly in Leyton, I have concerns about whether the infrastructure in this area can withstand the provision of another 2900 homes (on top of what has are being developed for Leyton Cricket recently been provided by the private sector and those approved schemes that are currently in the development pipeline). Ground. I am very concerned about the proposed re-zoning of green space around the Waterworks Centre and consider this area should be retained as open land. Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.11 Clearer dove-tailing with the Council's Mini Holland programme required. Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.1.3 116 Firstly I am happy that a plan has been formed for the development of the area. I agree with the report that the area around Lea Valley shows an exciting Support noted. Please refer to sections possibility to develop the underutilized space. The reason I can’t yet get too enthusiastic about the plans is because the quality of the final result will be 9.1-9.1.7, 9.2 and 9.8 determined in the detail of the development not the fact that is happening. My property will be directly affected by the developments in Leyton and I have concerns that my I will become overlooked. I also worry that with development at the back of my property I will lose light to my garden if it increases in height above the current Asda. I also live on a already busy road with very poor parking I would not wish this situation to become worse. I don't in principle have an issue with housing or retail units being at the back of my house but any further reduction in the quality of my life or financial impact to the value of my property will have to be addressed. I am in agreement with the majority of the plans but not all. Using the example of the recently approved development on Dunedin Road which has a 16 story development and will stand like a monolith in the area and is inappropriate and unwanted by local residents. It seems that the Dunedin Road development is designed to maximize profit from views on the park. It will also set a precedent so more high rise buildings in the area. Will the "views across the landscape" just be for the few able to afford the flats on that side of the buildings round the edge of the valley while casting a shadow on the others. One great asset of Leyton is that it does not have many high-rise and gives the area a feel of openness and space. Don't make the same mistakes of the past which resulted in many of the cheaply built high rise being knocked down while the Victorian housing stock has maintained its desirability. The other thing I find worrying is the scaling of 6 storeys for most of the building work. Personally I think this is high for this area. I think some housing should be higher than 6 storeys but I feel that should be the exception. 3-5 storey would be more appropriate and in keeping with the low rise character of the surrounding area. I agree that higher level properties lining the A12 would have little impact on the rest of the area. Few in the area can argue with the case for no new housing, but being built at any cost to its existing residents would be a very short sighted approach for such a widespread exciting plan as this. The Vision report I did find in places to be contradictory. e.g. on page 9 it is referred to a "new urban district" and then later in the same page is referred as a Comments noted. Please refer to suburban location. I'm not sure if it has been defined that Leyton/Lee Bridge is an Urban or a Sub Urban area but its population would not consider it as sections 9.2, 9.4, 9.8 and 9.10 urban. It sounded like it would be whatever allows the type of development that suits the vision to circumvent building restrictions. Leyton is one of the last areas in London where people know and interact with their neighbours. I would worry that the introduction of to high density housing will change that feel and make it cold and impersonal like the Olympic park developments. The "Great place to live" on page 5 states "Value the character of the existing place" I would question that any of the new development depictions as it stands does this. The architectural designs do not mimic the layout or designs of the surrounding area. The consideration of having green spaces within the development gets my full support and I think is important to have. I know people who live round Marsh Lane and the access to the park and the Antelope Pub will change the area as not much is round there apart from houses so a local community centre like a pub will make a big difference. The pack also states that it will ensure a brilliant quality of life. Many of the plans listed I think can do this for new people coming into the area as well as improving this for the existing populace and the new schools and health centres are much needed with current population levels. The main issue in the area is transport both train, bus and by foot. If the new vision fails to address those issues effectively but only makes them worse with Comments noted. Please refer to an increased demand due to population growth. I would say it has failed as a project. I feel positive about making the area better connected by foot as access sections 9.1-9.1.7 and 9.7 to the Olympic park from Leyton does not seem to have been thought about previously.

88

As someone who works in the Creative industry and the Vision seemed to be targeting companies like my own. Building these high rise poorly designed Comments noted. Please refer to buildings will not attract people like myself or the companies I work with to the area. If anything it might make me move away. sections 9.8 and 9.9 117 The area is fast attracting new residents and there is scope to improve the quality of the environment and services offered. Parts of the area have been Comments noted. Please refer to neglected and are prime for some attention. However, I think it's important to focus on creation and enhancement of the area as a 'neighbourhood'. sections 9.6 and 9.8 Appreciate that bringing in more commercial uses will improve the vibrancy of the area but some of the commercial aspirations for the Leyton area feels like they are trying to offshoot from Stratford a bit too much when long term a more attractive and prosperous environment may be borne from capturing and improving Leyton's unique charm and local neighbourhood feel.

118 The concept is well considered, it’s just a shame that 97 wasn't given the same consideration. We need to ensure our Developers are expected to contribute Comments noted. Please refer to to the areas them build in with community facilities and improvements to infrastructures. sections 9.5 and 9.8 119 I think it’s a good idea to bring new life into this part of the borough, especially centred around the new station. My major concern is that the area that you Comments noted. Please refer to have highlighted as an asset to the area - namely the marshes - is planned to be built on and rezoned for housing development. I feel that there is so much section 9.11 brown space land for development that could be rezoned before building on the green space that we have. First off we need to redevelop that - that could easily provide enough space without having to build on the green spaces we have, and that are the major asset of the area.

120 There should be NO rezoning of the marshes. It is a crucial asset which must be kept as recreation. Any developments in this area should be focused on the Comments noted. Please refer to many industrial units which should be converted to residential. section 9.11 121 I can see the sense of having an overall plan and to proactively develop areas and not leave it to the dictates of the market -although planning control can also Comments noted. Please refer to act as a barrier. More thought is required on the following: Is there the right balance between Housing, retaining and encouraging business and jobs and sections 9.2, 9.9 and 9.10 creating cultural hubs - giving some life to the areas and a reason to visit and spend social time - not only for those living in the new developments but also from elsewhere Residents - is it expected that the new developments will attract new residents who currently reside outside of the area or borough or is it aimed at improving Comments noted. Please refer to housing opportunities for established individuals and families in the borough? If it is the former then where is the economic evidence post Brexit that these section 9.3 numbers will come and that migration from the rest of London, UK and Europe will continue at pre-Brexit levels?

Infrastructure - further thought is needed for how this part of the borough will absorb a further 10,000 residents - where they work- how they move around - Comments noted. Please refer to the services they use and where they spend their leisure time. Creating Cultural and social capital - lacking from the plans currently is any sense on how the sections 9.1 to 9.1.7, 9.5 and 9.9 non-private and public sector can be used and developed so that they provide services and use or own spaces to drive the social and economic fabric of the area. There are some very good examples of not for profit agencies playing a key role in Borough life. They would need to be brought in early to help shape the planning and be given some stake in it. For this to happen the rhetoric needs to move from consultation to collaboration and co-production. Tackling major indices of poverty - the area focused on still has higher levels of poverty - bad health - lower life expectancy - higher unemployment and low skills. The litmus test for the vision is how these major issues are being challenged and improved through this level of change and investment.

122 The area needs some improvement and I think the plans look great. The area is currently very run down and in need of some work. I think all the plans look Support noted great. 123 The area needs some improvement and I think the plans look great. The area is currently very run down and in need of some work. I think all the plans look Support noted great. 124 I think the Leyton area has HUGE potential that is not currently best used. Leyton Mills could be used to bring much more money into the area with shops Support noted people would actually like to shop at. The Olympic park is a wonderful asset to the area yet again has been neglected and a pedestrian path would open up far more people coming to visit it. It Comments noted. Please refer to feels like Leyton has been overlooked and developers have jumped from Stratford to Walthamstow, when in fact Leyton is so well connected and has a great section 9.7 local feel, the possibilities of what could be done are endless but the document I read sums up the key areas that need work perfectly.

89

125 The area around the canal is a greatly used and valued piece of open space available to all the residents in the local area. It is used by dog walkers, Comments noted. Please refer to cyclists, joggers and families out for a stroll and would be ruined by any development to the area. Additionally Metropolitan Open Land is designated as sections 9.11 and 9.12 having the same protection as metropolitan green belt and should therefore not be subject to any development. Land close to the ice rink is also prone to flooding and naturally deals with this via the marsh areas - any development would upset this equilibrium and could cause flooding issues for other areas close by. 126 I strongly object to any residential or commercial development of a type on the waterworks site. Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.11 127 I am writing to express my vociferous opposition to the proposal within your 'Lea Valley Eastside Vision' document to rezone the land around the Waterworks Comment noted. Please refer to Centre for housing and land within the ex-Thames Water Depot site for development. The area is an important space for wildlife - it is home to a variety of section 9.11 snakes, birds and insects, and a place where local residents and Londoners from further afield can explore nature. Housing on the marshes, so close to the nature reserve, would degrade the environment, polluting it with light and noise, and threaten the viability of important wildlife populations. Over the last few years, we have seen the piecemeal erosion of open space throughout the lower Lea Valley. In each case, those proposing a development have told local people that they are only losing a small piece of land. However, the cumulative effect of these developments has drastically altered the composition of the area, and is beginning to have a serious impact on the quality of life and the health and well-being of residents. Mental health and access to nature are inextricably intertwined. If the LVRPA - the very organisation tasked with protecting some of our most precious green spaces is encouraged by this plan to try and sell off even one acre of Metropolitan Open Land, then it is no exaggeration to say that the spectre of our marshes disappearing under high-rise tower blocks comes one step closer. Waltham Forest residents will lose much of what makes the Borough more liveable, in exchange for increased concrete, pollution and a decreased quality of life. Ill finish with a statement made by the LVRPA itself in 2011, when it opposed the housing development at Essex Wharf, just across the road from both the Thames Water Depot and the Waterworks Centre: ˜We think it will have a major adverse impact on a large area of the Park. Residential development does not fit within the remit of the Park. I couldn't have said it better myself. Please amend 'Lea Valley Eastside Vision' to ensure that Metropolitan Open Land within the London Borough of Waltham Forest is protected. 128 I am writing to express my opposition to the proposal within your 'Lea Valley Eastside Vision' document to rezone the land around the Waterworks Centre for Comments noted. Please refer to housing and land within the ex-Thames Water Depot site for development. The land around the Waterworks Centre and the ex-Thames Water Depot is sections 9.11 and 9.12 Metropolitan Open Land. This means that, under the National Planning Policy Framework and the London Plan, it is protected from inappropriate development. Housing is not, and never will be, appropriate development. The area around the Waterworks Centre is used for leisure and recreation and the Lee Valley Regional Park Act does not empower the Lee Valley Regional Park Authority (LVRPA) to sell off land that is used for leisure and recreation. The LVRPA should not have suggested to you, the London Borough of Waltham Forest, that it is able to develop this land for housing. The land around the Waterworks Centre and the Thames Water Depot is floodplain. It is against both the National Planning Policy Framework and the London Plan to build on floodplain. At no point during the consultations about a new ice rink was anyone told that it would be funded by selling off recreational land. If the LVRPA cannot finance the ice rink without selling off green spaces, then it cannot afford a new ice rink. It is unconscionable that the Council, which purports to represent all residents, would support the selling off of land that people without much disposable income can use for leisure and recreation for free in order to build an ice rink that only those with money can use. Claims that the Waterworks is underused and this justifies closing it are disingenuous. It is underused only because those managing it have let it run into the ground over the last few years. There is so much that could be done to make it a vibrant community hub that pays its way. Not least the reinstatement of the very popular golf course (which we were promised would be returned to us after London 2012 anyway). The semi-natural habitats of the marshes of which the land around the Waterworks Centre is part are a haven for wildlife and home to protected species, including kingfishers, bats and dragonflies. They are also important for migrating birds. Housing on the marshes, so close to the nature reserve, would degrade the environment, polluting it with light and noise, and threaten the viability of important wildlife populations. Over the last few years, we have seen the piecemeal erosion of open space throughout the lower Lea Valley. In each case, those proposing a development have told local people that they are only losing a small piece of land. However, the cumulative effects of these developments are beginning to have a serious impact on the quality of life and the health and well-being of residents. If the LVRPA - the very organisation tasked with protecting some of our most precious green spaces is encouraged by this plan to try and sell off even one acre of Metropolitan Open Land, then it is no exaggeration to say that the spectre of our marshes disappearing under high- rise tower blocks comes one step closer. The LVRPA itself made a statement in 2011, when it opposed the housing development at Essex Wharf, just across the road from both the Thames Water Depot and the Waterworks Centre: We think it will have a major adverse impact on a large area of the Park. Residential development does not fit within the remit of the Park. Please amend 'Lea Valley Eastside Vision' to ensure that Metropolitan Open Land within the London 90

Borough of Waltham Forest is protected.

91

129 RE: LEA BRIDGE AND LEYTON CONSULTATION I write to express my strong opposition to the proposal within your 'Lea Valley Eastside Vision' document to Comments noted. Please refer to rezone the land around the Waterworks Centre for housing and land within the ex-Thames Water Depot site for development. The land around the sections 9.11 and 9.12 Waterworks Centre and the ex-Thames Water Depot is Metropolitan Open Land . This means that, under the National Planning Policy Framework and the London Plan, it is protected from inappropriate development. Housing is not, and never will be, appropriate development. The area around the Waterworks Centre is used for leisure and recreation and the Lee Valley Regional Park Act does not empower the Lee Valley Regional Park Authority (LVRPA) to sell off land that is used for leisure and recreation. The LVRPA should not have suggested to you, the London Borough of Waltham Forest, that it is able to develop this land for housing. The land around the Waterworks Centre and the Thames Water Depot is floodplain. It is against both the National Planning Policy Framework and the London Plan to build on floodplain. At no point during the consultations about a new ice rink was anyone told that it would be funded by selling off recreational land. If the LVRPA cannot finance the ice rink without selling off green spaces, then it cannot afford a new ice rink. It is unconscionable that the Council, which purports to represent all residents, would support the selling off of land that people without much disposable income can use for leisure and recreation for free in order to build an ice rink that only those with money can use. Claims that the Waterworks is underused and this justifies closing it are disingenuous. It is underused only because those managing it have let it run into the ground over the last few years. There is so much that could be done to make it a vibrant community hub that pays its way. Not least the reinstatement of the very popular golf course (which we were promised would be returned to us after London 2012 anyway). The semi-natural habitats of the marshes of which the land around the Waterworks Centre is part are a haven for wildlife and home to protected species, including kingfishers, bats and dragonflies. They are also important for migrating birds. Housing on the marshes, so close to the nature reserve, would degrade the environment, polluting it with light and noise, and threaten the viability of important wildlife populations. Even if the land under proposal for development is currently is underused, it provides an important and vital buffer zone to the adjacent areas of natural beauty and wildlife. To build houses on this land would not only destroy the Metropolitan Open Land on which it is built, but also adversely affect visitors enjoyment of the park close by, and further impinge on the flora and wildlife. Over the last few years, we have seen the piecemeal erosion of open space throughout the lower Lea Valley. In each case, those proposing a development have told local people that they are only losing a small piece of land. However, the cumulative effects of these developments are beginning to have a serious impact on the quality of life and the health and well-being of residents. If the LVRPA - the very organisation tasked with protecting some of our most precious green spaces is encouraged by this plan to try and sell off even one acre of Metropolitan Open Land, then it is no exaggeration to say that the spectre of our marshes disappearing under high-rise tower blocks comes one step closer. I'll finish with a statement made by the LVRPA itself in 2011, when it opposed the housing development at Essex Wharf, just across the road from both the Thames Water Depot and the Waterworks Centre: We think it will have a major adverse impact on a large area of the Park. Residential development does not fit within the remit of the Park. This seems clear and contrary to your proposals. Please amend 'Lea Valley Eastside Vision' to ensure that Metropolitan Open Land within the London Borough of Waltham Forest is protected.

92

130 I am writing to express my opposition to the proposal within your 'Lea Valley Eastside Vision' document to rezone the land around the Waterworks Centre for Comments noted. Please refer to housing and land within the ex-Thames Water Depot site for development. The land around the Waterworks Centre and the ex-Thames Water Depot is sections 9.11 and 9.12 Metropolitan Open Land. This means that, under the National Planning Policy Framework and the London Plan, it is protected from inappropriate development. Housing is not, and never will be, appropriate development. The area around the Waterworks Centre is used for leisure and recreation and the Lee Valley Regional Park Act does not empower the Lee Valley Regional Park Authority (LVRPA) to sell off land that is used for leisure and recreation. The LVRPA should not have suggested to you, the London Borough of Waltham Forest, that it is able to develop this land for housing. The land around the Waterworks Centre and the Thames Water Depot is floodplain. It is against both the National Planning Policy Framework and the London Plan to build on floodplain. At no point during the consultations about a new ice rink was anyone told that it would be funded by selling off recreational land. If the LVRPA cannot finance the ice rink without selling off green spaces, then it cannot afford a new ice rink. It is unconscionable that the Council, which purports to represent all residents, would support the selling off of land that people without much disposable income can use for leisure and recreation for free in order to build an ice rink that only those with money can use. Claims that the Waterworks is underused and this justifies closing it are disingenuous. It is underused only because those managing it have let it run into the ground over the last few years. There is so much that could be done to make it a vibrant community hub that pays its way. Not least the reinstatement of the very popular golf course (which we were promised would be returned to us after London 2012 anyway). The semi-natural habitats of the marshes of which the land around the Waterworks Centre is part are a haven for wildlife and home to protected species, including kingfishers, bats and dragonflies. They are also important for migrating birds. Housing on the marshes, so close to the nature reserve, would degrade the environment, polluting it with light and noise, and threaten the viability of important wildlife populations. Over the last few years, we have seen the piecemeal erosion of open space throughout the lower Lea Valley. In each case, those proposing a development have told local people that they are only losing a small piece of land. However, the cumulative effects of these developments are beginning to have a serious impact on the quality of life and the health and well-being of residents. If the LVRPA - the very organisation tasked with protecting some of our most precious green spaces is encouraged by this plan to try and sell off even one acre of Metropolitan Open Land, then it is no exaggeration to say that the spectre of our marshes disappearing under high- rise tower blocks comes one step closer. I'll finish with a statement made by the LVRPA itself in 2011, when it opposed the housing development at Essex Wharf, just across the road from both the Thames Water Depot and the Waterworks Centre: We think it will have a major adverse impact on a large area of the Park. Residential development does not fit within the remit of the Park. I couldn't have said it better myself. Please amend 'Lea Valley Eastside Vision' to ensure that Metropolitan Open Land within the London Borough of Waltham Forest is protected.

93

131 I am writing to express my opposition to the proposal within your 'Lea Valley Eastside Vision' document to rezone the land around the Waterworks Centre for Comments noted. Please refer to housing and land within the ex-Thames Water Depot site for development. The land around the Waterworks Centre and the ex-Thames Water Depot is sections 9.11 and 9.12 Metropolitan Open Land. This means that, under the National Planning Policy Framework and the London Plan, it is protected from inappropriate development. Housing is not, and never will be, appropriate development. The area around the Waterworks Centre is used for leisure and recreation and the Lee Valley Regional Park Act does not empower the Lee Valley Regional Park Authority (LVRPA) to sell off land that is used for leisure and recreation. The LVRPA should not have suggested to you, the London Borough of Waltham Forest, that it is able to develop this land for housing. The land around the Waterworks Centre and the Thames Water Depot is floodplain. It is against both the National Planning Policy Framework and the London Plan to build on floodplain. At no point during the consultations about a new ice rink was anyone told that it would be funded by selling off recreational land. If the LVRPA cannot finance the ice rink without selling off green spaces, then it cannot afford a new ice rink. It is unconscionable that the Council, which purports to represent all residents, would support the selling off of land that people without much disposable income can use for leisure and recreation for free in order to build an ice rink that only those with money can use. Claims that the Waterworks is underused and this justifies closing it are disingenuous. It is underused only because those managing it have let it run into the ground over the last few years. There is so much that could be done to make it a vibrant community hub that pays its way. Not least the reinstatement of the very popular golf course (which we were promised would be returned to us after London 2012 anyway). The semi-natural habitats of the marshes of which the land around the Waterworks Centre is part are a haven for wildlife and home to protected species, including kingfishers, bats and dragonflies. They are also important for migrating birds. Housing on the marshes, so close to the nature reserve, would degrade the environment, polluting it with light and noise, and threaten the viability of important wildlife populations. Over the last few years, we have seen the piecemeal erosion of open space throughout the lower Lea Valley. In each case, those proposing a development have told local people that they are only losing a small piece of land. However, the cumulative effects of these developments are beginning to have a serious impact on the quality of life and the health and well-being of residents. If the LVRPA - the very organisation tasked with protecting some of our most precious green spaces is encouraged by this plan to try and sell off even one acre of Metropolitan Open Land, then it is no exaggeration to say that the spectre of our marshes disappearing under high- rise tower blocks comes one step closer. I'll finish with a statement made by the LVRPA itself in 2011, when it opposed the housing development at Essex Wharf, just across the road from both the Thames Water Depot and the Waterworks Centre: We think it will have a major adverse impact on a large area of the Park. Residential development does not fit within the remit of the Park. I couldn't have said it better myself. Please amend 'Lea Valley Eastside Vision' to ensure that Metropolitan Open Land within the London Borough of Waltham Forest is protected. With best wishes

94

132 I am writing to express my opposition to the proposal within your 'Lea Valley Eastside Vision' document to rezone the land around the Waterworks Centre for Comments noted. Please refer to housing and land within the ex-Thames Water Depot site for development. The land around the Waterworks Centre and the ex-Thames Water Depot is sections 9.11 and 9.12 Metropolitan Open Land. This means that, under the National Planning Policy Framework and the London Plan, it is protected from inappropriate development. Housing is not, and never will be, appropriate development. The area around the Waterworks Centre is used for leisure and recreation and the Lee Valley Regional Park Act does not empower the Lee Valley Regional Park Authority (LVRPA) to sell off land that is used for leisure and recreation. The LVRPA should not have suggested to you, the London Borough of Waltham Forest, that it is able to develop this land for housing. The land around the Waterworks Centre and the Thames Water Depot is floodplain. It is against both the National Planning Policy Framework and the London Plan to build on floodplain. At no point during the consultations about a new ice rink was anyone told that it would be funded by selling off recreational land. If the LVRPA cannot finance the ice rink without selling off green spaces, then it cannot afford a new ice rink. It is unconscionable that the Council, which purports to represent all residents, would support the selling off of land that people without much disposable income can use for leisure and recreation for free in order to build an ice rink that only those with money can use. Claims that the Waterworks is underused and this justifies closing it are disingenuous. It is underused only because those managing it have let it run into the ground over the last few years. There is so much that could be done to make it a vibrant community hub that pays its way. Not least the reinstatement of the very popular golf course (which we were promised would be returned to us after London 2012 anyway). The semi-natural habitats of the marshes of which the land around the Waterworks Centre is part are a haven for wildlife and home to protected species, including kingfishers, bats and dragonflies. They are also important for migrating birds. Housing on the marshes, so close to the nature reserve, would degrade the environment, polluting it with light and noise, and threaten the viability of important wildlife populations. Over the last few years, we have seen the piecemeal erosion of open space throughout the lower Lea Valley. In each case, those proposing a development have told local people that they are only losing a small piece of land. However, the cumulative effects of these developments are beginning to have a serious impact on the quality of life and the health and well-being of residents. If the LVRPA - the very organisation tasked with protecting some of our most precious green spaces is encouraged by this plan to try and sell off even one acre of Metropolitan Open Land, then it is no exaggeration to say that the spectre of our marshes disappearing under high- rise tower blocks comes one step closer. I'll finish with a statement made by the LVRPA itself in 2011, when it opposed the housing development at Essex Wharf, just across the road from both the Thames Water Depot and the Waterworks Centre: We think it will have a major adverse impact on a large area of the Park. Residential development does not fit within the remit of the Park. I couldn't have said it better myself. Please amend 'Lea Valley Eastside Vision' to ensure that Metropolitan Open Land within the London Borough of Waltham Forest is protected.

95

133 I am writing to express my opposition to the proposal within your 'Lea Valley Eastside Vision' document to rezone the land around the Waterworks Centre for Comments noted. Please refer to housing and land within the ex-Thames Water Depot site for development. The land around the Waterworks Centre and the ex-Thames Water Depot is sections 9.11 and 9.12 Metropolitan Open Land. This means that, under the National Planning Policy Framework and the London Plan, it is protected from inappropriate development. Housing is not, and never will be, appropriate development. The area around the Waterworks Centre is used for leisure and recreation and the Lee Valley Regional Park Act does not empower the Lee Valley Regional Park Authority (LVRPA) to sell off land that is used for leisure and recreation. The LVRPA should not have suggested to you, the London Borough of Waltham Forest, that it is able to develop this land for housing. The land around the Waterworks Centre and the Thames Water Depot is floodplain. It is against both the National Planning Policy Framework and the London Plan to build on floodplain. At no point during the consultations about a new ice rink was anyone told that it would be funded by selling off recreational land. If the LVRPA cannot finance the ice rink without selling off green spaces, then it cannot afford a new ice rink. It is unconscionable that the Council, which purports to represent all residents, would support the selling off of land that people without much disposable income can use for leisure and recreation for free in order to build an ice rink that only those with money can use. Claims that the Waterworks is underused and this justifies closing it are disingenuous. It is underused only because those managing it have let it run into the ground over the last few years. There is so much that could be done to make it a vibrant community hub that pays its way. Not least the reinstatement of the very popular golf course (which we were promised would be returned to us after London 2012 anyway). The semi-natural habitats of the marshes of which the land around the Waterworks Centre is part are a haven for wildlife and home to protected species, including kingfishers, bats and dragonflies. They are also important for migrating birds. Housing on the marshes, so close to the nature reserve, would degrade the environment, polluting it with light and noise, and threaten the viability of important wildlife populations. Over the last few years, we have seen the piecemeal erosion of open space throughout the lower Lea Valley. In each case, those proposing a development have told local people that they are only losing a small piece of land. However, the cumulative effects of these developments are beginning to have a serious impact on the quality of life and the health and well-being of residents. If the LVRPA - the very organisation tasked with protecting some of our most precious green spaces is encouraged by this plan to try and sell off even one acre of Metropolitan Open Land, then it is no exaggeration to say that the spectre of our marshes disappearing under high- rise tower blocks comes one step closer. I'll finish with a statement made by the LVRPA itself in 2011, when it opposed the housing development at Essex Wharf, just across the road from both the Thames Water Depot and the Waterworks Centre: We think it will have a major adverse impact on a large area of the Park. Residential development does not fit within the remit of the Park. I couldn't have said it better myself. Please amend 'Lea Valley Eastside Vision' to ensure that Metropolitan Open Land within the London Borough of Waltham Forest is protected.

96

134 Dear Sir or Madam, I am writing to express my opposition to the proposal within your 'Lea Valley Eastside Vision' document to rezone the land around the Comments noted. Please refer to Waterworks Centre for housing and land within the ex-Thames Water Depot site for development. The land around the Waterworks Centre and the ex- sections 9.11 and 9.12 Thames Water Depot is Metropolitan Open Land. This means that, under the National Planning Policy Framework and the London Plan, it is protected from inappropriate development. Housing is not, and never will be, appropriate development. The area around the Waterworks Centre is used for leisure and recreation and the Lee Valley Regional Park Act does not empower the Lee Valley Regional Park Authority (LVRPA) to sell off land that is used for leisure and recreation. The LVRPA should not have suggested to you, the London Borough of Waltham Forest, that it is able to develop this land for housing. The land around the Waterworks Centre and the Thames Water Depot is floodplain. It is against both the National Planning Policy Framework and the London Plan to build on floodplain. At no point during the consultations about a new ice rink was anyone told that it would be funded by selling off recreational land. If the LVRPA cannot finance the ice rink without selling off green spaces, then it cannot afford a new ice rink. It is unconscionable that the Council, which purports to represent all residents, would support the selling off of land that people without much disposable income can use for leisure and recreation for free in order to build an ice rink that only those with money can use. Claims that the Waterworks is underused and this justifies closing it are disingenuous. It is underused only because those managing it have let it run into the ground over the last few years. There is so much that could be done to make it a vibrant community hub that pays its way. Not least the reinstatement of the very popular golf course (which we were promised would be returned to us after London 2012 anyway). The semi-natural habitats of the marshes of which the land around the Waterworks Centre is part are a haven for wildlife and home to protected species, including kingfishers, bats and dragonflies. They are also important for migrating birds. Housing on the marshes, so close to the nature reserve, would degrade the environment, polluting it with light and noise, and threaten the viability of important wildlife populations. Over the last few years, we have seen the piecemeal erosion of open space throughout the lower Lea Valley. In each case, those proposing a development have told local people that they are only losing a small piece of land. However, the cumulative effects of these developments are beginning to have a serious impact on the quality of life and the health and well-being of residents. If the LVRPA - the very organisation tasked with protecting some of our most precious green spaces is encouraged by this plan to try and sell off even one acre of Metropolitan Open Land, then it is no exaggeration to say that the spectre of our marshes disappearing under high- rise tower blocks comes one step closer. I'll finish with a statement made by the LVRPA itself in 2011, when it opposed the housing development at Essex Wharf, just across the road from both the Thames Water Depot and the Waterworks Centre: ˜We think it will have a major adverse impact on a large area of the Park. Residential development does not fit within the remit of the Park. I couldn't have said it better myself. Please amend 'Lea Valley Eastside Vision' to ensure that Metropolitan Open Land within the London Borough of Waltham Forest is protected. 135 I've lived in the area for 6 years. We've seen and welcomed a slow, natural increase in people visiting the area in the previous 3 years which strongly signifies Comments noted. Please refer to and proves that the area is mutually hospitable, welcoming, safe and accommodating to families, boats on the canal, dog-walkers, hikers, the most section 9.3 importantly the environment the wildlife require to live in. It doesn't require a make-over - especially as the proposed drawings look utterly generic and characterless much like other building travesties that plague London. 136 I've lived in the area for 6 years. We've seen and welcomed a slow, natural increase in people visiting the area in the previous 3 years which strongly signifies Comments noted. Please refer to and proves that the area is mutually hospitable, welcoming, safe and accommodating to families, boats on the canal, dog-walkers, hikers, the most section 9.3 importantly the environment the wildlife require to live in. It doesn't require a make-over - especially as the proposed drawings look utterly generic and characterless much like other building travesties that plague London. 137 The Vision as proposed represents a gross over development, potentially putting tremendous pressures on the local resources and environment in each of the Comments noted. The Vision has areas under consideration, particularly the areas of public open space in the Lee Valley Park; adjoining Lea Bridge Station and the Queen Elizabeth Jubilee updated the NOF AAP to reflect the Park. It is also contrary to the Council's current and adopted Local Plan, which in complete contrast proposes a much lower level of development. It is clear current situation and further that this "Vision" is designed to suit the needs of developers and those from outside the area rather than the needs of existing local residents. consultation and review will be undertaken as part of the Local Plan review.

97

138 Hi I am writing to express my opposition to the proposal within your 'Lea Valley Eastside Vision' document to rezone the land around the Waterworks Centre Comments noted. Please refer to for housing and land within the ex-Thames Water Depot site for development. The land around the Waterworks Centre and the ex-Thames Water Depot is sections 9.11 and 9.12 Metropolitan Open Land. This means that, under the National Planning Policy Framework and the London Plan, it is protected from inappropriate development. Housing is not, and never will be, appropriate development. The area around the Waterworks Centre is used for leisure and recreation and the Lee Valley Regional Park Act does not empower the Lee Valley Regional Park Authority (LVRPA) to sell off land that is used for leisure and recreation. The LVRPA should not have suggested to you, the London Borough of Waltham Forest, that it is able to develop this land for housing. The land around the Waterworks Centre and the Thames Water Depot is floodplain. It is against both the National Planning Policy Framework and the London Plan to build on floodplain. At no point during the consultations about a new ice rink was anyone told that it would be funded by selling off recreational land. If the LVRPA cannot finance the ice rink without selling off green spaces, then it cannot afford a new ice rink. It is unconscionable that the Council, which purports to represent all residents, would support the selling off of land that people without much disposable income can use for leisure and recreation for free in order to build an ice rink that only those with money can use. Claims that the Waterworks is underused and this justifies closing it are disingenuous. It is underused only because those managing it have let it run into the ground over the last few years. There is so much that could be done to make it a vibrant community hub that pays its way. Not least the reinstatement of the very popular golf course (which we were promised would be returned to us after London 2012 anyway). The semi-natural habitats of the marshes of which the land around the Waterworks Centre is part are a haven for wildlife and home to protected species, including kingfishers, bats and dragonflies. They are also important for migrating birds. Housing on the marshes, so close to the nature reserve, would degrade the environment, polluting it with light and noise, and threaten the viability of important wildlife populations. Over the last few years, we have seen the piecemeal erosion of open space throughout the lower Lea Valley. In each case, those proposing a development have told local people that they are only losing a small piece of land. However, the cumulative effects of these developments are beginning to have a serious impact on the quality of life and the health and well-being of residents. If the LVRPA - the very organisation tasked with protecting some of our most precious green spaces is encouraged by this plan to try and sell off even one acre of Metropolitan Open Land, then it is no exaggeration to say that the spectre of our marshes disappearing under high- rise tower blocks comes one step closer. I'll finish with a statement made by the LVRPA itself in 2011, when it opposed the housing development at Essex Wharf, just across the road from both the Thames Water Depot and the Waterworks Centre: We think it will have a major adverse impact on a large area of the Park. Residential development does not fit within the remit of the Park. I couldn't have said it better myself. Please amend 'Lea Valley Eastside Vision' to ensure that Metropolitan Open Land within the London Borough of Waltham Forest is protected. I look forward to hearing from you

98

139 Dear Sirs I am writing to express my opposition to the proposal within your 'Lea Valley Eastside Vision' document to rezone the land around the Waterworks Comments noted. Please refer to Centre for housing and land within the ex-Thames Water Depot site for development. The land around the Waterworks Centre and the ex-Thames Water sections 9.11 and 9.12 Depot is Metropolitan Open Land. This means that, under the National Planning Policy Framework and the London Plan, it is protected from inappropriate development. Housing is not, and never will be, appropriate development. The area around the Waterworks Centre is used for leisure and recreation and the Lee Valley Regional Park Act does not empower the Lee Valley Regional Park Authority (LVRPA) to sell off land that is used for leisure and recreation. The LVRPA should not have suggested to you, the London Borough of Waltham Forest, that it is able to develop this land for housing. The land around the Waterworks Centre and the Thames Water Depot is floodplain. It is against both the National Planning Policy Framework and the London Plan to build on floodplain. At no point during the consultations about a new ice rink was anyone told that it would be funded by selling off recreational land. If the LVRPA cannot finance the ice rink without selling off green spaces, then it cannot afford a new ice rink. It is unconscionable that the Council, which purports to represent all residents, would support the selling off of land that people without much disposable income can use for leisure and recreation for free in order to build an ice rink that only those with money can use. Claims that the Waterworks is underused and this justifies closing it are disingenuous. It is underused only because those managing it have let it run into the ground over the last few years. There is so much that could be done to make it a vibrant community hub that pays its way. Not least the reinstatement of the very popular golf course (which we were promised would be returned to us after London 2012 anyway). The semi-natural habitats of the marshes of which the land around the Waterworks Centre is part are a haven for wildlife and home to protected species, including kingfishers, bats and dragonflies. They are also important for migrating birds. Housing on the marshes, so close to the nature reserve, would degrade the environment, polluting it with light and noise, and threaten the viability of important wildlife populations. Over the last few years, we have seen the piecemeal erosion of open space throughout the lower Lea Valley. In each case, those proposing a development have told local people that they are only losing a small piece of land. However, the cumulative effects of these developments are beginning to have a serious impact on the quality of life and the health and well-being of residents. If the LVRPA - the very organisation tasked with protecting some of our most precious green spaces is encouraged by this plan to try and sell off even one acre of Metropolitan Open Land, then it is no exaggeration to say that the spectre of our marshes disappearing under high- rise tower blocks comes one step closer. I'll finish with a statement made by the LVRPA itself in 2011, when it opposed the housing development at Essex Wharf, just across the road from both the Thames Water Depot and the Waterworks Centre: We think it will have a major adverse impact on a large area of the Park. Residential development does not fit within the remit of the Park. I couldn't have said it better myself. Please amend 'Lea Valley Eastside Vision' to ensure that Metropolitan Open Land within the London Borough of Waltham Forest is protected. 140 No comments made

99

141 I am writing to express my opposition to the proposal within your 'Lea Valley Eastside Vision' document to rezone the land around the Waterworks Centre for Comments noted. Please refer to housing and land within the ex-Thames Water Depot site for development. The land around the Waterworks Centre and the ex-Thames Water Depot is sections 9.11 and 9.12 Metropolitan Open Land. This means that, under the National Planning Policy Framework and the London Plan, it is protected from inappropriate development. Housing is not, and never will be, appropriate development. The area around the Waterworks Centre is used for leisure and recreation and the Lee Valley Regional Park Act does not empower the Lee Valley Regional Park Authority (LVRPA) to sell off land that is used for leisure and recreation. The LVRPA should not have suggested to you, the London Borough of Waltham Forest, that it is able to develop this land for housing. The land around the Waterworks Centre and the Thames Water Depot is floodplain. It is against both the National Planning Policy Framework and the London Plan to build on floodplain. At no point during the consultations about a new ice rink was anyone told that it would be funded by selling off recreational land. If the LVRPA cannot finance the ice rink without selling off green spaces, then it cannot afford a new ice rink. It is unconscionable that the Council, which purports to represent all residents, would support the selling off of land that people without much disposable income can use for leisure and recreation for free in order to build an ice rink that only those with money can use. Claims that the Waterworks is underused and this justifies closing it are disingenuous. It is underused only because those managing it have let it run into the ground over the last few years. There is so much that could be done to make it a vibrant community hub that pays its way. Not least the reinstatement of the very popular golf course (which we were promised would be returned to us after London 2012 anyway). The semi-natural habitats of the marshes of which the land around the Waterworks Centre is part are a haven for wildlife and home to protected species, including kingfishers, bats and dragonflies. They are also important for migrating birds. Housing on the marshes, so close to the nature reserve, would degrade the environment, polluting it with light and noise, and threaten the viability of important wildlife populations. Over the last few years, we have seen the piecemeal erosion of open space throughout the lower Lea Valley. In each case, those proposing a development have told local people that they are only losing a small piece of land. However, the cumulative effects of these developments are beginning to have a serious impact on the quality of life and the health and well-being of residents. If the LVRPA - the very organisation tasked with protecting some of our most precious green spaces is encouraged by this plan to try and sell off even one acre of Metropolitan Open Land, then it is no exaggeration to say that the spectre of our marshes disappearing under high- rise tower blocks comes one step closer. I'll finish with a statement made by the LVRPA itself in 2011, when it opposed the housing development at Essex Wharf, just across the road from both the Thames Water Depot and the Waterworks Centre: We think it will have a major adverse impact on a large area of the Park. Residential development does not fit within the remit of the Park. I couldn't have said it better myself. Please amend 'Lea Valley Eastside Vision' to ensure that Metropolitan Open Land within the London Borough of Waltham Forest is protected.

100

142 I am writing to express my opposition to the proposal within your 'Lea Valley Eastside Vision' document to rezone the land around the Waterworks Centre for Comments noted. Please refer to housing and land within the ex-Thames Water Depot site for development. The land around the Waterworks Centre and the ex-Thames Water Depot is sections 9.11 and 9.12 Metropolitan Open Land. This means that, under the National Planning Policy Framework and the London Plan, it is protected from inappropriate development. Housing is not, and never will be, appropriate development. The area around the Waterworks Centre is used for leisure and recreation and the Lee Valley Regional Park Act does not empower the Lee Valley Regional Park Authority (LVRPA) to sell off land that is used for leisure and recreation. The LVRPA should not have suggested to you, the London Borough of Waltham Forest, that it is able to develop this land for housing. The land around the Waterworks Centre and the Thames Water Depot is floodplain. It is against both the National Planning Policy Framework and the London Plan to build on floodplain. At no point during the consultations about a new ice rink was anyone told that it would be funded by selling off recreational land. If the LVRPA cannot finance the ice rink without selling off green spaces, then it cannot afford a new ice rink. It is unconscionable that the Council, which purports to represent all residents, would support the selling off of land that people without much disposable income can use for leisure and recreation for free in order to build an ice rink that only those with money can use. Claims that the Waterworks is underused and this justifies closing it are disingenuous. It is underused only because those managing it have let it run into the ground over the last few years. There is so much that could be done to make it a vibrant community hub that pays its way. Not least the reinstatement of the very popular golf course (which we were promised would be returned to us after London 2012 anyway). The semi-natural habitats of the marshes of which the land around the Waterworks Centre is part are a haven for wildlife and home to protected species, including kingfishers, bats and dragonflies. They are also important for migrating birds. Housing on the marshes, so close to the nature reserve, would degrade the environment, polluting it with light and noise, and threaten the viability of important wildlife populations. Over the last few years, we have seen the piecemeal erosion of open space throughout the lower Lea Valley. In each case, those proposing a development have told local people that they are only losing a small piece of land. However, the cumulative effects of these developments are beginning to have a serious impact on the quality of life and the health and well-being of residents. If the LVRPA - the very organisation tasked with protecting some of our most precious green spaces is encouraged by this plan to try and sell off even one acre of Metropolitan Open Land, then it is no exaggeration to say that the spectre of our marshes disappearing under high- rise tower blocks comes one step closer. I'll finish with a statement made by the LVRPA itself in 2011, when it opposed the housing development at Essex Wharf, just across the road from both the Thames Water Depot and the Waterworks Centre: We think it will have a major adverse impact on a large area of the Park. Residential development does not fit within the remit of the Park. I couldn't have said it better myself. Please amend 'Lea Valley Eastside Vision' to ensure that Metropolitan Open Land within the London Borough of Waltham Forest is protected.

101

143 I am writing to express my opposition to the proposal within your 'Lea Valley Eastside Vision' document to rezone the land around the Waterworks Centre for Comments noted. Please refer to housing and land within the ex-Thames Water Depot site for development. The land around the Waterworks Centre and the ex-Thames Water Depot is sections 9.11 and 9.12 Metropolitan Open Land. This means that, under the National Planning Policy Framework and the London Plan, it is protected from inappropriate development. Housing is not, and never will be, appropriate development. The area around the Waterworks Centre is used for leisure and recreation and the Lee Valley Regional Park Act does not empower the Lee Valley Regional Park Authority (LVRPA) to sell off land that is used for leisure and recreation. The LVRPA should not have suggested to you, the London Borough of Waltham Forest, that it is able to develop this land for housing. The land around the Waterworks Centre and the Thames Water Depot is floodplain. It is against both the National Planning Policy Framework and the London Plan to build on floodplain. At no point during the consultations about a new ice rink was anyone told that it would be funded by selling off recreational land. If the LVRPA cannot finance the ice rink without selling off green spaces, then it cannot afford a new ice rink. It is unconscionable that the Council, which purports to represent all residents, would support the selling off of land that people without much disposable income can use for leisure and recreation for free in order to build an ice rink that only those with money can use. Claims that the Waterworks is underused and this justifies closing it are disingenuous. It is underused only because those managing it have let it run into the ground over the last few years. There is so much that could be done to make it a vibrant community hub that pays its way. Not least the reinstatement of the very popular golf course (which we were promised would be returned to us after London 2012 anyway). The semi-natural habitats of the marshes of which the land around the Waterworks Centre is part are a haven for wildlife and home to protected species, including kingfishers, bats and dragonflies. They are also important for migrating birds. Housing on the marshes, so close to the nature reserve, would degrade the environment, polluting it with light and noise, and threaten the viability of important wildlife populations. Over the last few years, we have seen the piecemeal erosion of open space throughout the lower Lea Valley. In each case, those proposing a development have told local people that they are only losing a small piece of land. However, the cumulative effects of these developments are beginning to have a serious impact on the quality of life and the health and well-being of residents. If the LVRPA - the very organisation tasked with protecting some of our most precious green spaces is encouraged by this plan to try and sell off even one acre of Metropolitan Open Land, then it is no exaggeration to say that the spectre of our marshes disappearing under high- rise tower blocks comes one step closer. I'll finish with a statement made by the LVRPA itself in 2011, when it opposed the housing development at Essex Wharf, just across the road from both the Thames Water Depot and the Waterworks Centre: We think it will have a major adverse impact on a large area of the Park. Residential development does not fit within the remit of the Park. I couldn't have said it better myself. Please amend 'Lea Valley Eastside Vision' to ensure that Metropolitan Open Land within the London Borough of Waltham Forest is protected.

144 I am strongly against the encroachment, visible or otherwise, on the Leyton Marshes habitat. London's wild spaces are precious and few and deserve to be Comments noted. Please refer to preserved. section 9.11

102

145 Dear all I am amazed and enraged at your proposal within your 'Lea Valley Eastside Vision' document to rezone the land around the Waterworks Centre for Comments noted. Please refer to housing and land within the ex-Thames Water Depot site for development. The land around the Waterworks Centre and the ex-Thames Water Depot is sections 9.11 and 9.12 Metropolitan Open Land. This means that, under the National Planning Policy Framework and the London Plan, it is protected from inappropriate development. Housing is not, and never will be, appropriate development. The area around the Waterworks Centre is used for leisure and recreation and the Lee Valley Regional Park Act does not empower the Lee Valley Regional Park Authority (LVRPA) to sell off land that is used for leisure and recreation. The LVRPA should not have suggested to you, the London Borough of Waltham Forest, that it is able to develop this land for housing. The land around the Waterworks Centre and the Thames Water Depot is floodplain. It is against both the National Planning Policy Framework and the London Plan to build on floodplain. At no point during the consultations about a new ice rink was anyone told that it would be funded by selling off recreational land. If the LVRPA cannot finance the ice rink without selling off green spaces, then it cannot afford a new ice rink. It is unconscionable that the Council, which purports to represent all residents, would support the selling off of land that people without much disposable income can use for leisure and recreation for free in order to build an ice rink that only those with money can use. Claims that the Waterworks is underused and this justifies closing it are disingenuous. It is underused only because those managing it have let it run into the ground over the last few years. There is so much that could be done to make it a vibrant community hub that pays its way. Not least the reinstatement of the very popular golf course (which we were promised would be returned to us after London 2012 anyway). The semi-natural habitats of the marshes of which the land around the Waterworks Centre is part are a haven for wildlife and home to protected species, including kingfishers, bats and dragonflies. They are also important for migrating birds. Housing on the marshes, so close to the nature reserve, would degrade the environment, polluting it with light and noise, and threaten the viability of important wildlife populations. Over the last few years, we have seen the piecemeal erosion of open space throughout the lower Lea Valley. In each case, those proposing a development have told local people that they are only losing a small piece of land. However, the cumulative effects of these developments are beginning to have a serious impact on the quality of life and the health and well-being of residents. If the LVRPA - the very organisation tasked with protecting some of our most precious green spaces is encouraged by this plan to try and sell off even one acre of Metropolitan Open Land, then it is no exaggeration to say that the spectre of our marshes disappearing under high- rise tower blocks comes one step closer. I'll finish with a statement made by the LVRPA itself in 2011, when it opposed the housing development at Essex Wharf, just across the road from both the Thames Water Depot and the Waterworks Centre: ˜We think it will have a major adverse impact on a large area of the Park. Residential development does not fit within the remit of the Park. I couldn't have said it better myself. Please amend 'Lea Valley Eastside Vision' to ensure that Metropolitan Open Land within the London Borough of Waltham Forest is protected.

103

146 I am writing to express my opposition to the proposal within your 'Lea Valley Eastside Vision' document to rezone the land around the Waterworks Centre for Comments noted. Please refer to housing and land within the ex-Thames Water Depot site for development. The land around the Waterworks Centre and the ex-Thames Water Depot is sections 9.11 and 9.12 Metropolitan Open Land. This means that, under the National Planning Policy Framework and the London Plan, it is protected from inappropriate development. Housing is not, and never will be, appropriate development. The area around the Waterworks Centre is used for leisure and recreation and the Lee Valley Regional Park Act does not empower the Lee Valley Regional Park Authority (LVRPA) to sell off land that is used for leisure and recreation. The LVRPA should not have suggested to you, the London Borough of Waltham Forest, that it is able to develop this land for housing. The land around the Waterworks Centre and the Thames Water Depot is floodplain. It is against both the National Planning Policy Framework and the London Plan to build on floodplain. At no point during the consultations about a new ice rink was anyone told that it would be funded by selling off recreational land. If the LVRPA cannot finance the ice rink without selling off green spaces, then it cannot afford a new ice rink. It is unconscionable that the Council, which purports to represent all residents, would support the selling off of land that people without much disposable income can use for leisure and recreation for free in order to build an ice rink that only those with money can use. Claims that the Waterworks is underused and this justifies closing it are disingenuous. It is underused only because those managing it have let it run into the ground over the last few years. There is so much that could be done to make it a vibrant community hub that pays its way. Not least the reinstatement of the very popular golf course (which we were promised would be returned to us after London 2012 anyway). The semi-natural habitats of the marshes of which the land around the Waterworks Centre is part are a haven for wildlife and home to protected species, including kingfishers, bats and dragonflies. They are also important for migrating birds. Housing on the marshes, so close to the nature reserve, would degrade the environment, polluting it with light and noise, and threaten the viability of important wildlife populations. Over the last few years, we have seen the piecemeal erosion of open space throughout the lower Lea Valley. In each case, those proposing a development have told local people that they are only losing a small piece of land. However, the cumulative effects of these developments are beginning to have a serious impact on the quality of life and the health and well-being of residents. If the LVRPA - the very organisation tasked with protecting some of our most precious green spaces is encouraged by this plan to try and sell off even one acre of Metropolitan Open Land, then it is no exaggeration to say that the spectre of our marshes disappearing under high- rise tower blocks comes one step closer. I'll finish with a statement made by the LVRPA itself in 2011, when it opposed the housing development at Essex Wharf, just across the road from both the Thames Water Depot and the Waterworks Centre: ˜We think it will have a major adverse impact on a large area of the Park. Residential development does not fit within the remit of the Park. I couldn't have said it better myself. Please amend 'Lea Valley Eastside Vision' to ensure that Metropolitan Open Land within the London Borough of Waltham Forest is protected.

104

147 Please scrap your plan to build on Metropolitan Open Land. We are am writing to express opposition to the proposal within your 'Lea Valley Eastside Vision' Comments noted. Please refer to document to rezone the land around the Waterworks Centre for housing and land within the ex-Thames Water Depot site for development. This is sections 9.11 and 9.12 Metropolitan Open Land. Under the National Planning Policy Framework and the London Plan, it is protected from inappropriate development. Housing is not, and never will be, appropriate development. The area around the Waterworks Centre is used for leisure and recreation and the Lee Valley Regional Park Act does not empower the Lee Valley Regional Park Authority (LVRPA) to sell off land that is used for leisure and recreation. The LVRPA should not have suggested to you, the London Borough of Waltham Forest, that it is able to develop this land for housing. The land around the Waterworks Centre and the Thames Water Depot is floodplain. It is against both the National Planning Policy Framework and the London Plan to build on floodplain. At no point during the consultations about a new ice rink was anyone told that it would be funded by selling off recreational land. If the LVRPA cannot finance the ice rink without selling off green spaces, then it cannot afford a new ice rink. It is unconscionable that the Council, which purports to represent all residents, would support the selling off of land that people without much disposable income can use for leisure and recreation for free in order to build an ice rink that only those with money can use. Claims that the Waterworks is underused and this justifies closing it are disingenuous. It is underused only because those managing it have let it run into the ground over the last few years. There is so much that could be done to make it a vibrant community hub that pays its way. Not least the re-instatement of the very popular golf course (which we were promised would be returned to us after London 2012 anyway). The semi-natural habitats of the marshes of which the land around the Waterworks Centre is part are a haven for wildlife and home to protected species, including kingfishers, bats and dragonflies. They are also important for migrating birds. Housing on the marshes, so close to the nature reserve, would degrade the environment, polluting it with light and noise, and threaten the viability of important wildlife populations. This area is also a part of an important green corridor for London's wildlife. Over the last few years, we have seen the piecemeal erosion of open space throughout the lower Lea Valley. In each case, those proposing a development have told local people that they are only losing a small piece of land. However, the cumulative effects of these developments are beginning to have a serious impact on the quality of life and the health and well-being of residents. If the LVRPA - the very organisation tasked with protecting some of our most precious green spaces is encouraged by this plan to try and sell off even one acre of Metropolitan Open Land, then it is no exaggeration to say that the spectre of our marshes disappearing under high-rise tower blocks comes one step closer. We will finish with a statement made by the LVRPA itself in 2011, when it opposed the housing development at Essex Wharf, just across the road from both the Thames Water Depot and the Waterworks Centre: We think it will have a major adverse impact on a large area of the Park. Residential development does not fit within the remit of the Park. We couldn't have said it better ourselves. Please amend 'Lea Valley Eastside Vision' to ensure that Metropolitan Open Land within the London Borough of Waltham Forest is protected.

105

148 The land around the Waterworks Centre and the ex-Thames Water Depot is Metropolitan Open Land. This means that, under the National Planning Policy Comments noted. Please refer to Framework and the London Plan, it is protected from inappropriate development. Housing is not, and never will be, appropriate development. The area sections 9.11 and 9.12 around the Waterworks Centre is used for leisure and recreation and the Lee Valley Regional Park Act does not empower the Lee Valley Regional Park Authority (LVRPA) to sell off land that is used for leisure and recreation. The LVRPA should not have suggested to you, the London Borough of Waltham Forest, that it is able to develop this land for housing. The land around the Waterworks Centre and the Thames Water Depot is floodplain. It is against both the National Planning Policy Framework and the London Plan to build on floodplain. At no point during the consultations about a new ice rink was anyone told that it would be funded by selling off recreational land. If the LVRPA cannot finance the ice rink without selling off green spaces, then it cannot afford a new ice rink. It is unconscionable that the Council, which purports to represent all residents, would support the selling off of land that people without much disposable income can use for leisure and recreation for free in order to build an ice rink that only those with money can use. Claims that the Waterworks is underused and this justifies closing it are disingenuous. It is underused only because those managing it have let it run into the ground over the last few years. There is so much that could be done to make it a vibrant community hub that pays its way. Not least the reinstatement of the very popular golf course (which we were promised would be returned to us after London 2012 anyway). The semi-natural habitats of the marshes of which the land around the Waterworks Centre is part are a haven for wildlife and home to protected species, including kingfishers, bats and dragonflies. They are also important for migrating birds. Housing on the marshes, so close to the nature reserve, would degrade the environment, polluting it with light and noise, and threaten the viability of important wildlife populations. Over the last few years, we have seen the piecemeal erosion of open space throughout the lower Lea Valley. In each case, those proposing a development have told local people that they are only losing a small piece of land. However, the cumulative effects of these developments are beginning to have a serious impact on the quality of life and the health and well-being of residents. If the LVRPA - the very organisation tasked with protecting some of our most precious green spaces is encouraged by this plan to try and sell off even one acre of Metropolitan Open Land, then it is no exaggeration to say that the spectre of our marshes disappearing under high-rise tower blocks comes one step closer. I'll finish with a statement made by the LVRPA itself in 2011, when it opposed the housing development at Essex Wharf, just across the road from both the Thames Water Depot and the Waterworks Centre: We think it will have a major adverse impact on a large area of the Park. Residential development does not fit within the remit of the Park. I couldn't have said it better myself. Please amend 'Lea Valley Eastside Vision' to ensure that Metropolitan Open Land within the London Borough of Waltham Forest is protected. 149 The council should not build on Lea Valley Parkland. It is Metropolitan Open Land, designated by an Act of Parliament Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.11

106

150 Dear Councillors, I am writing to express my opposition to the proposal within your 'Lea Valley Eastside Vision' document to rezone the land around the Comments noted. Please refer to Waterworks Centre for housing and land within the ex-Thames Water Depot site for development. The land around the Waterworks Centre and the ex- sections 9.11 and 9.12 Thames Water Depot is Metropolitan Open Land. This means that, under the National Planning Policy Framework and the London Plan, it is protected from inappropriate development. Housing is not, and never will be, appropriate development. The area around the Waterworks Centre is used for leisure and recreation and the Lee Valley Regional Park Act does not empower the Lee Valley Regional Park Authority (LVRPA) to sell off land that is used for leisure and recreation. The LVRPA should not have suggested to you, the London Borough of Waltham Forest, that it is able to develop this land for housing. The land around the Waterworks Centre and the Thames Water Depot is floodplain. It is against both the National Planning Policy Framework and the London Plan to build on floodplain. At no point during the consultations about a new ice rink was anyone told that it would be funded by selling off recreational land. If the LVRPA cannot finance the ice rink without selling off green spaces, then it cannot afford a new ice rink. It is unconscionable that the Council, which purports to represent all residents, would support the selling off of land that people without much disposable income can use for leisure and recreation for free in order to build an ice rink that only those with money can use. Claims that the Waterworks is underused and this justifies closing it are disingenuous. It is underused only because those managing it have let it run into the ground over the last few years. There is so much that could be done to make it a vibrant community hub that pays its way. Not least the reinstatement of the very popular golf course (which we were promised would be returned to us after London 2012 anyway). The semi-natural habitats of the marshes of which the land around the Waterworks Centre is part are a haven for wildlife and home to protected species, including kingfishers, bats and dragonflies. They are also important for migrating birds. Housing on the marshes, so close to the nature reserve, would degrade the environment, polluting it with light and noise, and threaten the viability of important wildlife populations. Over the last few years, we have seen the piecemeal erosion of open space throughout the lower Lea Valley. In each case, those proposing a development have told local people that they are only losing a small piece of land. However, the cumulative effects of these developments are beginning to have a serious impact on the quality of life and the health and well-being of residents. If the LVRPA - the very organisation tasked with protecting some of our most precious green spaces is encouraged by this plan to try and sell off even one acre of Metropolitan Open Land, then it is no exaggeration to say that the spectre of our marshes disappearing under high- rise tower blocks comes one step closer. I'll finish with a statement made by the LVRPA itself in 2011, when it opposed the housing development at Essex Wharf, just across the road from both the Thames Water Depot and the Waterworks Centre: We think it will have a major adverse impact on a large area of the Park. Residential development does not fit within the remit of the Park. I couldn't have said it better myself. Please amend 'Lea Valley Eastside Vision' to ensure that Metropolitan Open Land within the London Borough of Waltham Forest is protected.

107

151 The land around the Waterworks Centre and the ex-Thames Water Depot is Metropolitan Open Land. This means that, under the National Planning Policy Comments noted. Please refer to Framework and the London Plan, it is protected from inappropriate development. Housing is not, and never will be, appropriate development. The area sections 9.11 and 9.12 around the Waterworks Centre is used for leisure and recreation and the Lee Valley Regional Park Act does not empower the Lee Valley Regional Park Authority (LVRPA) to sell off land that is used for leisure and recreation. The LVRPA should not have suggested to you, the London Borough of Waltham Forest, that it is able to develop this land for housing. The land around the Waterworks Centre and the Thames Water Depot is floodplain. It is against both the National Planning Policy Framework and the London Plan to build on floodplain. At no point during the consultations about a new ice rink was anyone told that it would be funded by selling off recreational land. If the LVRPA cannot finance the ice rink without selling off green spaces, then it cannot afford a new ice rink. It is unconscionable that the Council, which purports to represent all residents, would support the selling off of land that people without much disposable income can use for leisure and recreation for free in order to build an ice rink that only those with money can use. Claims that the Waterworks is underused and this justifies closing it are disingenuous. It is underused only because those managing it have let it run into the ground over the last few years. There is so much that could be done to make it a vibrant community hub that pays its way. Not least the reinstatement of the very popular golf course (which we were promised would be returned to us after London 2012 anyway). The semi-natural habitats of the marshes of which the land around the Waterworks Centre is part are a haven for wildlife and home to protected species, including kingfishers, bats and dragonflies. They are also important for migrating birds. Housing on the marshes, so close to the nature reserve, would degrade the environment, polluting it with light and noise, and threaten the viability of important wildlife populations. Over the last few years, we have seen the piecemeal erosion of open space throughout the lower Lea Valley. In each case, those proposing a development have told local people that they are only losing a small piece of land. However, the cumulative effects of these developments are beginning to have a serious impact on the quality of life and the health and well-being of residents. If the LVRPA - the very organisation tasked with protecting some of our most precious green spaces is encouraged by this plan to try and sell off even one acre of Metropolitan Open Land, then it is no exaggeration to say that the spectre of our marshes disappearing under high-rise tower blocks comes one step closer. I'll finish with a statement made by the LVRPA itself in 2011, when it opposed the housing development at Essex Wharf, just across the road from both the Thames Water Depot and the Waterworks Centre: We think it will have a major adverse impact on a large area of the Park. Residential development does not fit within the remit of the Park. I couldn't have said it better myself. Please amend 'Lea Valley Eastside Vision' to ensure that Metropolitan Open Land within the London Borough of Waltham Forest is protected. 152 Further details are required on the employment; transport; health and cultural plans Please refer to section 9.1-9.1.7, 9.5 and 9.10 153 Need to know what is being proposed for area which includes the Waterworks Centre in Lea Bridge Road Please refer to section 9.11 154 Response from Leyton Orient Trust is considered under 3rd party representations Please refer to section 4

108

155 I am writing to express my opposition to the proposal within your 'Lea Valley Eastside Vision' document to rezone the land around the Waterworks Centre for Comments noted. Please refer to housing and land within the ex-Thames Water Depot site for development. I have been a teacher at Leyton Sixth Form College for many years and many of our sections 9.11 and 9.12 students live in this area. We regularly take college groups to this area of the Lee Valley for a variety of educational reasons. It is vital we protect these green spaces in such a pressured urban environment. The land around the Waterworks Centre and the ex-Thames Water Depot is Metropolitan Open Land. This means that, under the National Planning Policy Framework and the London Plan, it is protected from inappropriate development. The area around the Waterworks Centre is used for leisure and recreation and the Lee Valley Regional Park Act does not empower the Lee Valley Regional Park Authority (LVRPA) to sell off land that is used for leisure and recreation. The land around the Waterworks Centre and the Thames Water Depot is floodplain. It is against both the National Planning Policy Framework and the London Plan to build on floodplain. At no point during the consultations about a new ice rink was anyone told that it would be funded by selling off recreational land. If the LVRPA cannot finance the ice rink without selling off green spaces, then it cannot afford a new ice rink. It is unconscionable that the Council, which purports to represent all residents, would support the selling of land that people can use for leisure and recreation in order to build an ice rink that only those with money can use. Claims that the Waterworks is underused and this justifies closing it are disingenuous. It is underused only because those managing it have let it run into the ground over the last few years. There is so much that could be done to make it a vibrant community hub that pays its way. Not least the reinstatement of the very popular golf course (which we were promised would be returned to us after London 2012). The semi-natural habitats of the marshes of which the land around the Waterworks Centre is part are a haven for wildlife and home to protected species, including kingfishers, bats and dragonflies. They are also important for migrating birds. Both common and rare birds are seen regularly. Websites such as London birders and the East London Birders Forum often have noteworthy sightings from Walthamstow Marshes and its environ. Housing on the marshes, so close to the nature reserve, would degrade the environment, polluting it with light and noise, and threaten the viability of important wildlife populations. Over the last few years, we have seen the piecemeal erosion of open space throughout the lower Lea Valley. In each case, those proposing a development have told local people that they are only losing a small piece of land. However, the cumulative effects of these developments are beginning to have a serious impact on the quality of life and the health and well-being of residents. If the LVRPA - the very organisation tasked with protecting some of our most precious green spaces is encouraged by this plan to try and sell off even one acre of Metropolitan Open Land, then it is no exaggeration to say that the spectre of our marshes disappearing comes one step closer. The LVRPA itself in 2011, when it opposed the housing development at Essex Wharf, just across the road from both the Thames Water Depot and the Waterworks Centre: We think it will have a major adverse impact on a large area of the Park. Residential development does not fit within the remit of the Park. Please amend 'Lea Valley Eastside Vision' to ensure that Metropolitan Open Land within the London Borough of Waltham Forest is protected. With best wishes

109

156 I am writing to express my opposition to the proposal within your 'Lea Valley Eastside Vision' document to rezone the land around the Waterworks Centre for Comments noted. Please refer to housing and land within the ex-Thames Water Depot site for development. The land around the Waterworks Centre and the ex-Thames Water Depot is sections 9.11 and 9.12 Metropolitan Open Land. This means that, under the National Planning Policy Framework and the London Plan, it is protected from inappropriate development. Housing is not, and never will be, appropriate development. The area around the Waterworks Centre is used for leisure and recreation and the Lee Valley Regional Park Act does not empower the Lee Valley Regional Park Authority (LVRPA) to sell off land that is used for leisure and recreation. The LVRPA should not have suggested to you, the London Borough of Waltham Forest, that it is able to develop this land for housing. The land around the Waterworks Centre and the Thames Water Depot is floodplain. It is against both the National Planning Policy Framework and the London Plan to build on floodplain. At no point during the consultations about a new ice rink was anyone told that it would be funded by selling off recreational land. If the LVRPA cannot finance the ice rink without selling off green spaces, then it cannot afford a new ice rink. It is unconscionable that the Council, which purports to represent all residents, would support the selling off of land that people without much disposable income can use for leisure and recreation for free in order to build an ice rink that only those with money can use. Claims that the Waterworks is underused and this justifies closing it are disingenuous. It is underused only because those managing it have let it run into the ground over the last few years. There is so much that could be done to make it a vibrant community hub that pays its way. Not least the reinstatement of the very popular golf course (which we were promised would be returned to us after London 2012 anyway). The semi-natural habitats of the marshes of which the land around the Waterworks Centre is part are a haven for wildlife and home to protected species, including kingfishers, bats and dragonflies. They are also important for migrating birds. Housing on the marshes, so close to the nature reserve, would degrade the environment, polluting it with light and noise, and threaten the viability of important wildlife populations. Over the last few years, we have seen the piecemeal erosion of open space throughout the lower Lea Valley. In each case, those proposing a development have told local people that they are only losing a small piece of land. However, the cumulative effects of these developments are beginning to have a serious impact on the quality of life and the health and well-being of residents. If the LVRPA - the very organisation tasked with protecting some of our most precious green spaces is encouraged by this plan to try and sell off even one acre of Metropolitan Open Land, then it is no exaggeration to say that the spectre of our marshes disappearing under high- rise tower blocks comes one step closer. I'll finish with a statement made by the LVRPA itself in 2011, when it opposed the housing development at Essex Wharf, just across the road from both the Thames Water Depot and the Waterworks Centre: We think it will have a major adverse impact on a large area of the Park. Residential development does not fit within the remit of the Park. I couldn't have said it better myself. Please amend 'Lea Valley Eastside Vision' to ensure that Metropolitan Open Land within the London Borough of Waltham Forest is protected. 157 This is just another council land grab. The last thing we want is 4500 more "homes" there are far too many people here already. Where are the plans for the Comments noted. Please refer to new hospital, schools, (that you have already built on) doctor surgeries that would be required for the influx of people. This is a green field site, we don't need section 9.5 more pollution created by this over development. Instead of burning our money on visions of the future they should be concentrating on some of the things they were set up for such as public toilets, where are the postmen, delivery men, road workers and their own road sweepers supposed to go. Vermin control rats ,grey squirrels, mice and cockroaches, the council should be doing it not relying on tax payers paying £150 with no guarantee of results. We are paying already.

110

158 I am writing to express my opposition to the proposal within your 'Lea Valley Eastside Vision' document to rezone the land around the Waterworks Centre for Comments noted. Please refer to housing and land within the ex-Thames Water Depot site for development. The land around the Waterworks Centre and the ex-Thames Water Depot is sections 9.11 and 9.12 Metropolitan Open Land. This means that, under the National Planning Policy Framework and the London Plan, it is protected from inappropriate development. Housing is not, and never will be, appropriate development. The area around the Waterworks Centre is used for leisure and recreation and the Lee Valley Regional Park Act does not empower the Lee Valley Regional Park Authority (LVRPA) to sell off land that is used for leisure and recreation. The LVRPA should not have suggested to you, the London Borough of Waltham Forest, that it is able to develop this land for housing. The land around the Waterworks Centre and the Thames Water Depot is floodplain. It is against both the National Planning Policy Framework and the London Plan to build on floodplain. At no point during the consultations about a new ice rink was anyone told that it would be funded by selling off recreational land. If the LVRPA cannot finance the ice rink without selling off green spaces, then it cannot afford a new ice rink. It is unconscionable that the Council, which purports to represent all residents, would support the selling off of land that people without much disposable income can use for leisure and recreation for free in order to build an ice rink that only those with money can use. Claims that the Waterworks is underused and this justifies closing it are disingenuous. It is underused only because those managing it have let it run into the ground over the last few years. There is so much that could be done to make it a vibrant community hub that pays its way. Not least the reinstatement of the very popular golf course (which we were promised would be returned to us after London 2012 anyway). The semi-natural habitats of the marshes of which the land around the Waterworks Centre is part are a haven for wildlife and home to protected species, including kingfishers, bats and dragonflies. They are also important for migrating birds. Housing on the marshes, so close to the nature reserve, would degrade the environment, polluting it with light and noise, and threaten the viability of important wildlife populations. Over the last few years, we have seen the piecemeal erosion of open space throughout the lower Lea Valley. In each case, those proposing a development have told local people that they are only losing a small piece of land. However, the cumulative effects of these developments are beginning to have a serious impact on the quality of life and the health and well-being of residents. If the LVRPA - the very organisation tasked with protecting some of our most precious green spaces is encouraged by this plan to try and sell off even one acre of Metropolitan Open Land, then it is no exaggeration to say that the spectre of our marshes disappearing under high- rise tower blocks comes one step closer. I'll finish with a statement made by the LVRPA itself in 2011, when it opposed the housing development at Essex Wharf, just across the road from both the Thames Water Depot and the Waterworks Centre: ˜We think it will have a major adverse impact on a large area of the Park. Residential development does not fit within the remit of the Park. I couldn't have said it better myself. Please amend 'Lea Valley Eastside Vision' to ensure that Metropolitan Open Land within the London Borough of Waltham Forest is protected.

159 Dear Sir/Madam You propose within your 'Lea Valley Eastside Vision' document to rezone the land around the Waterworks Centre for housing and land within Comments noted. Please refer to the ex-Thames Water Depot site for development. I object to this because This is Metropolitan Open Land. It is it is protected from inappropriate sections 9.11 and 9.12 development under the NPPF. Housing is not appropriate. The land around the Waterworks Centre and the Thames Water Depot is floodplain. It is against both the National Planning Policy Framework and the London Plan to build on floodplain. The area around the Waterworks Centre is used for leisure and recreation and the Lee Valley Regional Park Act does not empower the Lee Valley Regional Park Authority (LVRPA) to sell off land that is used for leisure and recreation. The semi-natural habitats of the marshes of which the land around the Waterworks Centre is part are a haven for wildlife The LVRPA is tasked with protecting some of our most precious green spaces. If they sell off even one acre of Metropolitan Open Land, then everything else is "up for grabs" and our marshes will be lost forever under concrete Please protect Metropolitan Open Land within the London Borough of Waltham Forest.

160 Dear Sir/Madam You propose within your 'Lea Valley Eastside Vision' document to rezone the land around the Waterworks Centre for housing and land within Comments noted. Please refer to the ex-Thames Water Depot site for development. I object to this because This is Metropolitan Open Land. It is it is protected from inappropriate sections 9.11 and 9.12 development under the NPPF. Housing is not appropriate. The land around the Waterworks Centre and the Thames Water Depot is floodplain. It is against both the National Planning Policy Framework and the London Plan to build on floodplain. The area around the Waterworks Centre is used for leisure and recreation and the Lee Valley Regional Park Act does not empower the Lee Valley Regional Park Authority (LVRPA) to sell off land that is used for leisure and recreation. The semi-natural habitats of the marshes of which the land around the Waterworks Centre is part are a haven for wildlife The LVRPA is tasked with protecting some of our most precious green spaces. If they sell off even one acre of Metropolitan Open Land, then everything else is "up for grabs" and our marshes will be lost forever under concrete Please protect Metropolitan Open Land within the London Borough of Waltham Forest

161 Response from Eurostar included 3rd Party Representations Please refer to section 4

111

162 I do not agree that you should re-classify the waterworks centre and the nearby area as suitable for housing. This is an important nature reserve Leyton marsh Comments noted. Please refer to should be more accessible and visible in line with the main principle of the vision. There is a duty to protect this area and help the fight to reduce pollution if section 9.11 flats are built there will be a barrier to the open marshland 163 I am greatly disturbed by the proposals to build on Metropolitan Open Land, green spaces in the borough and surrounding areas are what makes this area Comments noted. Please refer to unique and a place of recreation and escape. Building on Leyton Marshes is the thin end of the wedge. section 9.11 164 Response from Strutt and Parker included in 3rd Party Representations Please refer to section 4 165 I object to the proposal within your 'Lea Valley Eastside Vision' document to rezone the land around the Waterworks Centre for housing and land within the Comments noted. Please refer to ex-Thames Water Depot site for development. The land around the Waterworks Centre and the ex-Thames Water Depot is Metropolitan Open Land. This sections 9.11 and 9.12 means that, under the National Planning Policy Framework and the London Plan, it is protected from inappropriate development. Housing is not, and never will be, appropriate development. The area around the Waterworks Centre is used for leisure and recreation and the Lee Valley Regional Park Act does not empower the Lee Valley Regional Park Authority (LVRPA) to sell off land that is used for leisure and recreation. The LVRPA should not have suggested to you, the London Borough of Waltham Forest, that it is able to develop this land for housing. The land around the Waterworks Centre and the Thames Water Depot is floodplain. It is against both the National Planning Policy Framework and the London Plan to build on floodplain. At no point during the consultations about a new ice rink was anyone told that it would be funded by selling off recreational land. If the LVRPA cannot finance the ice rink without selling off green spaces, then it cannot afford a new ice rink. It is unconscionable that the Council, which purports to represent all residents, would support the selling off of land that people without much disposable income can use for leisure and recreation for free in order to build an ice rink that only those with money can use. Claims that the Waterworks is underused and this justifies closing it are disingenuous. It is underused only because those managing it let it run into the ground over the last few years. There is so much that could be done to make it a vibrant community hub that pays its way. Not least the reinstatement of the very popular golf course (which we were promised would be returned to us after London 2012 anyway). The semi-natural habitats of the marshes of which the land around the Waterworks Centre is part are a haven for wildlife and home to protected species, including kingfishers, bats and dragonflies. They are also important for migrating birds. Housing on the marshes, so close to the nature reserve, would degrade the environment, pollute it with light and noise, and threaten the viability of important wildlife populations. Over the last few years, we have seen the piecemeal erosion of open space throughout the lower Lea Valley. In each case, those proposing a development have told local people that they are only losing a small piece of land. However, the cumulative effects of these developments are beginning to have a serious impact on the quality of life and the health and well-being of residents. If the LVRPA - the very organisation tasked with protecting some of our most precious green spaces is encouraged by this plan to try and sell off even one acre of Metropolitan Open Land, then it is no exaggeration to say that the spectre of our marshes disappearing under high-rise tower blocks comes one step closer. I'll finish with a statement made by the LVRPA itself in 2011, when it opposed the housing development at Essex Wharf, just across the road from both the Thames Water Depot and the Waterworks Centre: We think it will have a major adverse impact on a large area of the Park. Residential development does not fit within the remit of the Park. I couldn't have said it better myself. Please amend 'Lea Valley Eastside Vision' to ensure that Metropolitan Open Land within the London Borough of Waltham Forest is protected. 166 Metropolitan Open Land is a finite resource and needs to be protected. Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.11 167 No comments made

112

168 Dear Sirs, I am writing to express my opposition to the proposal within your 'Lea Valley Eastside Vision' document to rezone the land around the Waterworks Comments noted. Please refer to Centre for housing and land within the ex-Thames Water Depot site for development. The land around the Waterworks Centre and the ex-Thames Water sections 9.11 and 9.12 Depot is Metropolitan Open Land. This means that, under the National Planning Policy Framework and the London Plan, it is protected from inappropriate development. Housing is not, and never will be, appropriate development. The area around the Waterworks Centre is used for leisure and recreation and the Lee Valley Regional Park Act does not empower the Lee Valley Regional Park Authority (LVRPA) to sell off land that is used for leisure and recreation. The LVRPA should not have suggested to you, the London Borough of Waltham Forest, that it is able to develop this land for housing. The land around the Waterworks Centre and the Thames Water Depot is floodplain. It is against both the National Planning Policy Framework and the London Plan to build on floodplain. At no point during the consultations about a new ice rink was anyone told that it would be funded by selling off recreational land. If the LVRPA cannot finance the ice rink without selling off green spaces, then it cannot afford a new ice rink. It is unconscionable that the Council, which purports to represent all residents, would support the selling off of land that people without much disposable income can use for leisure and recreation for free in order to build an ice rink that only those with money can use. Claims that the Waterworks is underused and this justifies closing it are disingenuous. It is underused only because those managing it have let it run into the ground over the last few years. There is so much that could be done to make it a vibrant community hub that pays its way. Not least the reinstatement of the very popular golf course (which we were promised would be returned to us after London 2012 anyway). The semi-natural habitats of the marshes of which the land around the Waterworks Centre is part are a haven for wildlife and home to protected species, including kingfishers, bats and dragonflies. They are also important for migrating birds. Housing on the marshes, so close to the nature reserve, would degrade the environment, polluting it with light and noise, and threaten the viability of important wildlife populations. Over the last few years, we have seen the piecemeal erosion of open space throughout the lower Lea Valley. In each case, those proposing a development have told local people that they are only losing a small piece of land. However, the cumulative effects of these developments are beginning to have a serious impact on the quality of life and the health and well-being of residents. If the LVRPA - the very organisation tasked with protecting some of our most precious green spaces is encouraged by this plan to try and sell off even one acre of Metropolitan Open Land, then it is no exaggeration to say that the spectre of our marshes disappearing under high- rise tower blocks comes one step closer. I'll finish with a statement made by the LVRPA itself in 2011, when it opposed the housing development at Essex Wharf, just across the road from both the Thames Water Depot and the Waterworks Centre: We think it will have a major adverse impact on a large area of the Park. Residential development does not fit within the remit of the Park. I couldn't have said it better myself. 169 I attended the consultation meeting and along with other local residents who fear the impact this will have on the local community. Waltham Forest Council Comments noted. Please refer to (WFC) are disingenuous with this consultation process. This area is already congested due to side roads being closed off. This project will only make matters sections 9.1-9.1.7 and 9.5 worse. Bus lanes along Lea Bridge Road are already being displaced in favour of cycle lanes. Cyclists have now become a priority over the thousands of residents who use buses to get to and from work. It has already added 20 minutes to journey times. Lea Bridge Road is already one of the most congested roads in the area. This is totally unacceptable. I do feel that WFC have a vision that they want to implement regardless of what the residents want. You have been given the funds and intend to follow through despite the negativity from the real locals as you did with the cycle lanes and floating bus-stops. I must say that the floating bus-stops has to be one of the most unintelligent ideas I have ever come across. Whilst the bus stops to collect passengers the remaining traffic must wait until this process has been completed. With hindsight I can see that council tax will be increased, and the area will be more expensive to live in. Residents will be forced to leave the area whilst affluent others move in. WFC are already making it difficult to live in the area by increasing the permit parking for motorists by 100% without a formal consultation. WFC putting out an advert in the local paper about the increase is a very cunning and deceitful way of informing the residents. In conclusion therefore I am very much against the Vision. However, I know that my comments will fall on deaf ears as the decision has already been made. As I stated at the outset, this consultation process is disingenuous. WFC in their infinite wisdom have made it worse, the project will not make things any better. The borough is already bursting at the seams yet nothing is Comments noted. Please refer to being done about the lack doctor's surgeries etc. to service the residents. section 9.5

113

170 As per the generic email the below is very relevant to myself Claims that the Waterworks is underused and this justifies closing it are disingenuous. It is Comments noted. Please refer to underused only because those managing it have let it run into the ground over the last few years. There is so much that could be done to make it a vibrant section 9.11 community hub that pays its way. Not least the reinstatement of the very popular golf course (which we were promised would be returned to us after London 2012 anyway). The semi-natural habitats of the marshes of which the land around the Waterworks Centre is part are a haven for wildlife and home to protected species, including kingfishers, bats and dragonflies. They are also important for migrating birds. Housing on the marshes, so close to the nature reserve, would degrade the environment, polluting it with light and noise, and threaten the viability of important wildlife populations. I was one of those who used the golf course, an absolute gem. Was very disappointed it never opened again after the Olympics, guessing something that is not discussed when speaking about the Olympic legacy!!!!

171 I do not believe the council has paid due regard to the maintenance of our open spaces and community land. The consultation on this development (despite Comments noted. Please see section costing a lot of money one assumes) does not encourage local people to understand. I do not accept the councils business and residential emphasis for these 9.11. The Vision document has been areas at the expense of our green space. The consultation documents are obtuse - maps are badly labelled e.g. keys are pages ahead, there is no before and checked to confirm that keys relate to after maps to show the extent of building on green space, the language used can only be described as gobbledy speak (try as I have I cannot fully understand maps, road names have been added to the intention). key plans and a plan included showing current Land Use Designations.

I appreciate that there does need to be some regeneration and particularly improvement of transport links - Lea Bridge Road has been a disaster area for Support noted. Please refer to sections decades as a route across the Lea Valley. 9.1-9.1.7 However I do not accept that Waltham Forest residents do not make good links to the park area despite the removal of sporting activities such as the golf Comments noted. Please refer to centre at Waterworks centre. Many of us walk on Walthamstow and Leyton Marshes and have enjoyed our use of the facilities already existing. We do not section 9.11 want more retail, and more residential in this area can only make transport more congested. Strange that these companies are so keen to build in this area now that house prices have risen so dramatically!

There is no commitment that I have seen to social housing (although the documents are so long!) Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.3 172 Whilst I appreciate the need the housing we have even fewer green spaces and these should be preserved for the use of the community Comment noted. Please refer to sections 9.4 and 9.11 173 I agree with the plan to renovate and restore dilapidated buildings and improve transport links and access to the lea valley marshes/parks but I am concerned Comment noted. Please refer to that the plan to build 4,500 new homes is too many. section 9.2 The area is already intensely populated and congested, with pressure on transport and local services and I do not think the area can support such an increase Comment noted. Please refer to in new homes without negatively impacting on existing residents. sections 9.1-9.1.7 and 9.5 174 We agree with your vision for wanting to improve the local area and in the following text boxes we shall be including views and comments from 16 residents Support noted. Issues raised have been of Overton Road, bordering Staffa Road. We have outlined out views and concerns mainly with regards to the development sites on Staffa Road. passed on to be investigated by the Waltham Forest’s Neighbourhoods Team.

114

175 To whom it may concern, I am writing to express my opposition to the proposal within your 'Lea Valley Eastside Vision' document to rezone the land around Comments noted. Please refer to the Waterworks Centre for housing and land within the ex-Thames Water Depot site for development. The land around the Waterworks Centre and the ex- sections 9.11 and 9.12 Thames Water Depot is Metropolitan Open Land. This means that, under the National Planning Policy Framework and the London Plan, it is protected from inappropriate development. Housing is not, and never will be, appropriate development. The area around the Waterworks Centre is used for leisure and recreation and enjoyed by residents as a vital pocket of clean air in London, and the Lee Valley Regional Park Act does not empower the Lee Valley Regional Park Authority (LVRPA) to sell off land that is used for leisure and recreation. The LVRPA should not have suggested to you, the London Borough of Waltham Forest, that it is able to develop this land for housing. The land around the Waterworks Centre and the Thames Water Depot is floodplain. It is against both the National Planning Policy Framework and the London Plan to build on floodplain. At no point during the consultations about a new ice rink was anyone told that it would be funded by selling off recreational land. If the LVRPA cannot finance the ice rink without selling off green spaces, then it cannot afford a new ice rink. It is unconscionable that the Council, which purports to represent all residents, would support the selling off of land that people without much disposable income can use for leisure and recreation for free in order to build an ice rink that only those with money can use. Claims that the Waterworks is underused and this justifies closing it are disingenuous. It is underused only because those managing it have let it run into the ground over the last few years. There is so much that could be done to make it a vibrant community hub that pays its way. Not least the reinstatement of the very popular golf course (which we were promised would be returned to us after London 2012 anyway). The semi-natural habitats of the marshes of which the land around the Waterworks Centre is part are a haven for wildlife and home to protected species, including kingfishers, bats and dragonflies. They are also important for migrating birds. Housing on the marshes, so close to the nature reserve, would degrade the environment, polluting it with light and noise, and threaten the viability of important wildlife populations. Over the last few years, we have seen the piecemeal erosion of open space throughout the lower Lea Valley. In each case, those proposing a development have told local people that they are only losing a small piece of land. However, the cumulative effects of these developments are beginning to have a serious impact on the quality of life and the health and well-being of residents. If the LVRPA - the very organisation tasked with protecting some of our most precious green spaces is encouraged by this plan to try and sell off even one acre of Metropolitan Open Land, then it is no exaggeration to say that the spectre of our marshes disappearing under high-rise tower blocks comes one step closer. I'll finish with a statement made by the LVRPA itself in 2011, when it opposed the housing development at Essex Wharf, just across the road from both the Thames Water Depot and the Waterworks Centre: We think it will have a major adverse impact on a large area of the Park. Residential development does not fit within the remit of the Park. I couldn't have said it better myself. Please amend 'Lea Valley Eastside Vision' to ensure that Metropolitan Open Land within the London Borough of Waltham Forest is protected. 176 Whilst the area is in need of regeneration, I'm concerned about the proposal for a "double pad" ice rink, which presumably will need double the amount of Comment noted. Please refer to space, taking up what's currently green land that I use on a daily basis for recreation. section 9.11 177 The suggestion to build on the already limited green space in the borough, is at best short sighted, the waterworks site should be developed into a community Comments noted. Please refer to hub with facilities for residents and a focus on improving and extending the green space not, turning it into flats to be sold off to landlords and overseas section 9.11 investors. Focus should move away from cycle improvements and focus on pedestrian improvements. Cycling is a transport means used by a small number of people in Comments noted. Please refer to the borough but attracts an overwhelmingly large proportion of attention and funding (I say this as a cyclist who commutes daily in the borough). section 9.1.3 178 There is a need to develop the areas that have been left derelict into sympathetic and usable spaces for a population that is ever growing and being pushed Comments noted. Please refer to from Hackney and other areas into East Leyton. The developments will rely on the vision that can be converted to policy and planning to avoid narrowing the sections 9.3 and 9.5 opportunities for locals who still live in the area i.e. not to push them out for gentrification, health and community venues for schools and young and older population groups. A better transport infrastructure that makes better use of the new Lea Bridge station and mini Holland investments and also to develop health and wellbeing Comments noted. Please refer to through protection of the environment. But that will also encourage more people to visit the area from other parts of East London/London and those visiting section 9.1-9.1.7 and 9.7 from outside for activities around the canal pathways, and greenways and protected greenbelt. We need to make sure that areas of green belt and heritage remain protected and that planning prevents huge retail development, unaffordable and ugly Comment noted. Please refer to housing blocks and brings back a sense of community for the areas marked out. sections 9.3, 9.8 and 9.11 179 See below for my comments - Reference to comments made on Lea Bridge, Church Road and Leyton 115

180 The area has potential for greater density housing and mixed uses on underutilised sites such as the Lea Bridge Industrial Estate which does not in its current Comments noted. Please refer to form seem to offer either high employment opportunities nor valued community space or much needed housing. Further to that there are clear soft natural sections 9.5, 9.7 and 9.11 boundaries in the Lea Bridge regeneration area that if respected would allow for greater intensity of land use whilst helping to ensure there is no creep into the valuable natural amenity areas of Lea Valley, Hackney Marshes and beyond. Increasing the amount of mixed use and housing around Lea Bridge station should help to build in better connectivity between the existing housing areas to the east along Lea Bridge Road with the open spaces of hackney marshes and lea valley whilst also creating a local hub where medical services, retail, industrial and housing can co-locate besides the existing transport links provided by Lea Bridge train station and the cycle routes linking with the river lea to the west, Stratford to the south and Walthamstow to the north. Similarly the Church Road regeneration area lends itself well for carefully considered redevelopment to provide better connectivity between Leyton Jubilee Park and the residential areas of Capworth Street, Park Road and Leyton Grange. Currently the industrial estates to the west of Church Road create barrier between the valuable open space and the housing areas. It is however important to protect local business and employment in the area and also respect the local history and character. Therefore I feel this commercial Comments noted. Please refer to and industrial space should be retained. However looking at the spatial arrangement of the existing estates there does seem to be opportunity to redesign the sections 9.8 and 9.9 area between Leyton Jubilee Park and Church Road in a manner which would allow for the same amount of commercial and industrial space in addition to new medium density housing facing onto the park.

Similarly the gas works to the north west corner of Leyton Jubilee Park do not appear to offer much community value assuming their use as a gas storage Comments noted. Please refer to facility is not required and there is scope to increase capacity at another gas holding site in the borough. Whilst a limited amount of housing could be section 9.8 accommodated on the gas holder site, I believe it is extremely important not to encroach into Leyton Jubilee Park beyond the footprint of the site which is marked out by tarmac and hard standing. I consider the plan to convert the most easterly gas holder into a feature park to be an excellent proposal and one that would provide added amenity for existing residents whilst also creating additional recreational space to account for the growth in the number of residents living in any new housing on the newly developed western part of the gas holder site. Clearly new housing should not detract from the enjoyment existing residents get from their homes and gardens and thus it makes sense new housing should be built up against the boundary of the gas holder site and the industrial units fronting onto Orient Way. 181 The area has potential for greater density housing and mixed uses on underutilised sites such as the Lea Bridge Industrial Estate which does not in its current Comments noted. Please refer to form seem to offer either high employment opportunities nor valued community space or much needed housing. Further to that there are clear soft natural sections 9.5, 9.7 and 9.11 boundaries in the Lea Bridge regeneration area that if respected would allow for greater intensity of land use whilst helping to ensure there is no creep into the valuable natural amenity areas of Lea Valley, Hackney Marshes and beyond. Increasing the amount of mixed use and housing around Lea Bridge station should help to build in better connectivity between the existing housing areas to the east along Lea Bridge Road with the open spaces of hackney marshes and lea valley whilst also creating a local hub where medical services, retail, industrial and housing can co-locate besides the existing transport links provided by Lea Bridge train station and the cycle routes linking with the river lea to the west, Stratford to the south and Walthamstow to the north. Similarly the Church Road regeneration area lends itself well for carefully considered redevelopment to provide better connectivity between Leyton Jubilee Park and the residential areas of Capworth Street, Park Road and Leyton Grange. Currently the industrial estates to the west of Church Road create barrier between the valuable open space and the housing areas. It is however important to protect local business and employment in the area and also respect the local history and character. Therefore I feel this commercial Comments noted. Please refer to and industrial space should be retained. However looking at the spatial arrangement of the existing estates there does seem to be opportunity to redesign the sections 9.8 and 9.9 area between Leyton Jubilee Park and Church Road in a manner which would allow for the same amount of commercial and industrial space in addition to new medium density housing facing onto the park.

116

Similarly the gas works to the north west corner of Leyton Jubilee Park do not appear to offer much community value assuming their use as a gas storage Comments noted. Please refer to facility is not required and there is scope to increase capacity at another gas holding site in the borough. Whilst a limited amount of housing could be section 9.8 accommodated on the gas holder site, I believe it is extremely important not to encroach into Leyton Jubilee Park beyond the footprint of the site which is marked out by tarmac and hard standing. I consider the plan to convert the most easterly gas holder into a feature park to be an excellent proposal and one that would provide added amenity for existing residents whilst also creating additional recreational space to account for the growth in the number of residents living in any new housing on the newly developed western part of the gas holder site. Clearly new housing should not detract from the enjoyment existing residents get from their homes and gardens and thus it makes sense new housing should be built up against the boundary of the gas holder site and the industrial units fronting onto Orient Way. 182 The proposal lacks considerations and practical solutions for existing residents and their parking space. It appears that there will be new shops and business Comments noted. Please refer to units in the Leyton Mills with car-free zone, which will subsequently have direct impatient on the residential parking nearby including Adelaide Road. In order sections 9.1 to 9.1.7 to have successful implementation od proposal a number of areas must be accompanied; 1) The current controlled parking (Monday to Friday 10am to 4pm) must be extended in line with the business hours of new shops in the Leyton Mills. For example, if there is a shop opening at 9am and closing at 9pm, then the controlled parking in residential areas must be the same as business hours of those shops in order to minimise the risk of negative impact on the quality of life of residents. 2) Proposed planning includes 2500 units of new homes in the Leyton Mills, however there seems to have none to minimal parking space in the planning. There are people who have no alternative means to get to work other than by car and the proposal seems to ignore the other side of coin. 4) With regards to the proposed car-free zone in the Leyton Mills areas, how efficient will that policy be to tackle CO emission & air pollution compared to these caused by airplanes that are flying directly above the residential homes 6-9 times per hour from 5:45am to 10:30pm Monday to Sunday? Robust evidence pointed out the airline/flights were one of major causes of CO emission & air pollution. Local authorities endeavour to tackle the origin of problems without delay to promote the quality of life and we'll being of residents. 3) The proposed plan and development will inevitably attract more people 24/7 for various purposes, and the detailed action plans such as health and safety Comments noted. measures, waste/bin collection, street cleaning, crowd control will have to be clearly communicated with all stakeholders. Alcohol and substance related public health problems are one of key priorities in the Walthamstow council, and policing should be enhanced. 183 No comments made 184 I am so concerned about the proposals to build housing and schools on what should be perpetually protected public green land in the Lea Valley that I cannot Comment noted. Please refer to support the vision. section 9.11 I also think a vision will only serve housing needs if there are a great deal many more genuinely affordable housing units. Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.3 185 Response from Metropolitan Police included in Stakeholders Responses Comment noted. Please refer to section 3 186 I think the area needs an improvement but I'm worried about overcrowding and creating even more traffic on Lea Bridge Road. Pollution levels need to be Comments noted. Please refer to controlled. I'm very happy about new bicycle lanes. sections 9.1-9.1.7 187 The land that used to be a popular golf course has been deliberately left to run down over the years. This land is classed as Metropolitan Open Land and as Comments noted. Please refer to such should never be used for inappropriate development. It seems that you have earmarked this land for housing which can never be classed as appropriate section 9.11 on Metropolitan Open Land. This does not present a very good image of The LVRPA, Waltham Forest Council or its Councillors. If the LVRPA who have the privilege and responsibility for protecting our open spaces are now actually going to sell off this Open Land, then it will be the thin end of the wedge which will see Hackney and Walthamstow disappear under dense housing development. Who can we trust with our heritage of East London's invaluable open spaces? Also is this legal? 188 Excellent use of the land - all other areas have been developed around this site (Chatsworth road, Olympic park, lee valley and lower Clapton etc.) Support noted 189 Whilst much of the area would benefit from development/regeneration/investment, one of the things that make it a nice place to live is that there is a village- Comments noted. Please refer to like feel to the area. Any development should look to maintain this. Very tall buildings, such as that suggested on the grassy area next to LB station can't be sections 9.2 and 9.8 good for maintaining the village-like feel of the area.

117

Building on green space absolutely should not be allowed, particularly when there are so many underused plots of land and antisocial-type Comments noted. Please refer to businesses/warehouses that detract from the quality of life. Surely these should be built on before destroying pleasant green spaces. Walthamstow Marshes section 9.11 and the whole Lea Valley area are a little known gem in London. Encourage people to come here and use the green spaces, don't destroy them. 190 No comments made 191 Response from bptw partnership included in 3rd party representations Please refer to section 4 192 Please remove the proposal to allow sale to housing developers of Metropolitan Open Land (MOL) at the Waterworks site, Lea Bridge Road. The Metropolitan Comments noted. Please refer to Open Land should not be developed as it is important as open green space in many ways including for recreation, health promotion, nature conservation, section 9.11 education etc. It is an important area to me and my family as we used to exercise and cycle there with our children while they were small. We still visit and enjoy the Waterworks centre and Essex/Middlesex filter beds. It is facility that enriches the lives of those living in Waltham Forest and Hackney.

193 Dear Waltham Forest Council, I am writing to express my opposition to the proposal within your 'Lea Valley Eastside Vision' document to rezone the land Comments noted. Please refer to around the Waterworks Centre for housing and land within the ex-Thames Water Depot site for development. The land around the Waterworks Centre and sections 9.11 and 9.12 the ex-Thames Water Depot is Metropolitan Open Land. This means that, under the National Planning Policy Framework and the London Plan, it is protected from inappropriate development. Housing is not, and never will be, appropriate development. The area around the Waterworks Centre is used for leisure and recreation and the Lee Valley Regional Park Act does not empower the Lee Valley Regional Park Authority (LVRPA) to sell off land that is used for leisure and recreation. The LVRPA should not have suggested to you, the London Borough of Waltham Forest, that it is able to develop this land for housing. The land around the Waterworks Centre and the Thames Water Depot is floodplain. It is against both the National Planning Policy Framework and the London Plan to build on floodplain. At no point during the consultations about a new ice rink was anyone told that it would be funded by selling off recreational land. If the LVRPA cannot finance the ice rink without selling off green spaces, then it cannot afford a new ice rink. It is unconscionable that the Council, which purports to represent all residents, would support the selling off of land that people without much disposable income can use for leisure and recreation for free in order to build an ice rink that only those with money can use. Claims that the Waterworks is underused and this justifies closing it are disingenuous. It is underused only because those managing it have let it run into the ground over the last few years. There is so much that could be done to make it a vibrant community hub that pays its way. Not least the reinstatement of the very popular golf course (which we were promised would be returned to us after London 2012 anyway). The semi-natural habitats of the marshes of which the land around the Waterworks Centre is part are a haven for wildlife and home to protected species, including kingfishers, bats and dragonflies. They are also important for migrating birds. Housing on the marshes, so close to the nature reserve, would degrade the environment, polluting it with light and noise, and threaten the viability of important wildlife populations. Over the last few years, we have seen the piecemeal erosion of open space throughout the lower Lea Valley. In each case, those proposing a development have told local people that they are only losing a small piece of land. However, the cumulative effects of these developments are beginning to have a serious impact on the quality of life and the health and well-being of residents. If the LVRPA - the very organisation tasked with protecting some of our most precious green spaces is encouraged by this plan to try and sell off even one acre of Metropolitan Open Land, then it is no exaggeration to say that the spectre of our marshes disappearing under high- rise tower blocks comes one step closer. Ill finish with a statement made by the LVRPA itself in 2011, when it opposed the housing development at Essex Wharf, just across the road from both the Thames Water Depot and the Waterworks Centre: ˜We think it will have a major adverse impact on a large area of the Park. Residential development does not fit within the remit of the Park. I couldn't have said it better myself. Please amend 'Lea Valley Eastside Vision' to ensure that Metropolitan Open Land within the London Borough of Waltham Forest is protected. 194 The plan entails building on Metropolitan Open Land, which is unacceptable. Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.11 195 I cannot comment on proposals for parts of the Borough that I do not know. My concerns are with the proposals for the Lea Bridge area. Comment noted

118

196 I originally emailed my comments to [email protected]. I received an email asking me to include my comments in this Comments noted. Please refer to portal, so here is the exact text I sent in my email: I am writing to express my opposition to the proposal within your 'Lea Valley Eastside Vision' document to sections 9.11 and 9.12 rezone the land around the Waterworks Centre and the ex-Thames Water Depot for housing development. My objections are as follows: The land around the Waterworks Centre is Metropolitan Open Land . Under the National Planning Policy Framework and the London Plan, it is protected from inappropriate development. Housing is not, and never will be, appropriate development. The area around the Waterworks Centre is used for leisure and recreation and the Lee Valley Regional Park Act does not empower the Lee Valley Regional Park Authority (LVRPA) to sell off land that is used for leisure and recreation. Consequently the LVRPA is completely overstepping their remit to suggest the land is able to be developed for housing. The land around both sites (Waterworks Centre and Thames Water Depot) is floodplain. It is against both the National Planning Policy Framework and the London Plan to build on floodplain. The public consultation about the proposed ice rink development never mentioned that funding would rely on selling off other recreational land in the vicinity. If the LVRPA cannot finance the ice rink without selling off green spaces, then it cannot afford a new ice rink. The London Borough of Waltham Forest has one of the highest rates of low paid workers in the whole of London, therefore it would be totally unacceptable for Waltham Forest council to support the sale of Metropolitan Open Land which can be used free of charge, in order to build an ice rink which is only accessible to those who can afford the admission charge. Claims that the Waterworks Centre is underused are disingenuous. It is underused only because LVRPA have deliberately run it down over the last few years and ignored ideas from the local community for revitalising it. There is so much that could be done to make it a vibrant community hub that pays its way - not least reinstating the highly popular golf course, closed down prior to the 2012 Olympics to provide camping space for Olympic visitors, with the (broken) promise that it would be reinstated after the Olympics had finished. The land around the sites is a haven for many protected species of wildlife. The semi-natural habitat of the marshes which includes the land around the Waterworks Centre “provides a home for species such as kingfishers, bats and dragonflies and is also an important habitat for migrating birds. The proposed housing would be right next to the existing nature reserve, and as a consequence would degrade the environment, polluting it with light and noise, threatening the viability of important wildlife populations. The harmful cumulative effects of unchallenged development. Over the last few years, open space throughout the lower Lea Valley has been gradually eroded. In each case, local people have been assured by the developers that that they are only losing a small piece of land. However, the cumulative effects of these developments are beginning to have a serious impact on the quality of life and the health and well-being of residents. Users of the marshes are extremely concerned at the precedent that could be set if these two sites were rezoned for housing. It is unbelievable that LVRPA - which was set up specifically to protect green spaces “ should be even considering selling green spaces they are meant to be protecting . If LVRPA are allowed to do this, it is no exaggeration to speculate that we are getting one step closer to a time in the very near future in which the marshes have disappeared, bit by bit, under the shadow of high- rise tower blocks. LVRPA is contradicting its previous public position on the detrimental impact of any housing development in the area. In 2011, LVRP opposed the housing development at Essex Wharf, across the road from both the Thames Water Depot and the Waterworks Centre, saying: We think it will have a major adverse impact on a large area of the Park. Residential development does not fit within the remit of the Park. Taking all of these crucial factors into account, please therefore amend 'Lea Valley Eastside Vision' to ensure that Metropolitan Open Land within the London Borough of Waltham Forest is protected for the sake of the environment and for future generations of local people. 197 I feel that the vision document seeks to monetise Metropolitan Open Land by seeking to develop part of Leyton Marshes for private housing. The plans lack Comments noted. Please refer to imagination and present a rather bland vision of Lea Bridge Road/Leyton with expensive housing and bland shopping areas. I don't feel that this document and sections 9.3 and 9.11 vision of the area will offer much to local people. 198 Certainly Waltham Forest residents need more housing; though the people most in need are the least likely to benefit from the Council's plans. And certainly Comments noted. Please refer to a measure of regeneration would benefit the area, provided that it is conducted with sensitivity - which certainly has not been the case in recent section 9.3 developments at Stratford and . There are aspects of the proposals for Leyton and Church Road which I would happily support. My major concern however is with the proposals for Lea Bridge. 199 There are enough houses & flats in Waltham forest already don't need any more Comments noted. Please refer to section 9.3 200 I feel that the vision is centred to strongly around either existing green areas that should be maintained as open space or around areas that have a lot of traffic Comments noted. Please refer to congestion. Another concern is the lack of 'ground up' regeneration indicated within the strategy. There are many elements of the scheme that I feel could be section 10 better achieved through a dynamic public programme of co-design. Less money would be spent overall and the result would be more embedded with care. In the striving for a vision, the care for a place is often lost - this in the long-term results in a whole array of anti-social problems, social divides all creating long- term finance burdens on local authorities. 119

201 This area of land means a huge amount to my family and me. I often walk around there and it helps keeps me sane and healthy in this vast, busy metropolis. Comments noted. Please refer to The rare birds and plants are amazing to see in central London. My mum who is in her 70s walks there every day and my dad also used to before he died. He section 9.11 was in his late 90s and unable to travel far from home, the Lee Valley kept him connected with nature. It was his favourite place to go and helped him enormously in the last year of his life. I feel that the Waterworks Centre was allowed to be rundown and this is why it has been underused. I think if it was made into a proper community hub with a nice cafe and facilities, it would be extremely popular. The two cafes at Springfield Park and the Princess of Wales Pub and The Anchor and Hope Pub are always busy, which shows there is a demand. I have been several times to the Waterworks Cafe and the staff seemed surprised that anyone wanted to order something. It has had a semi-abandoned vibe there since the golf course closed. I think it's a real shame that instead of investing into making it a decent centre for users of the marshes and helping Londoners connect with nature, you want to build on it. Regarding building on the former golf course area and the other green land, I think this would be an absolute travesty. The Lea Valley is a green lung for London. We must treasure this green space in the city and preserve it! 202 The area is very underdeveloped considering the proximity to central London and as a borough certain roads and green spaces have acted as a barrier to the Comments noted. Please refer to inclusion of the area to the wider regeneration of neighbouring boroughs. section 9.7 203 The vision identifies building on Metropolitan Open Land. Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.11 204 We agree that the area needs to be dramatically upgraded but the overall vision does not go far enough, in that the artist's impression shows a building on Comments noted. This is a high level our site, (the key site for the first stage of the overall vision), of a restricted height and of mixed residential and retail usage, which, in our opinion, does not go vision and the next steps will be to far enough, as the retail element would be better placed further into the new village/development and the industrial element being moved closer to the A12 carry out the Local Plan review where enhanced road access is available. Similarly the restricted height/mixed residential and retail usage conditions will devalue our holdings making it much including further work on how the area less attractive as a proposition. could evolve. 205 I agree that it is important that redevelopment is considered across the whole area, and that the council is able to take opportunities for CIL/S106 etc. from Comments noted. Please refer to developers and use these to the best effect to benefit residents and enhance the area as a place for residents. Most important is to ensure 'liveability' of the sections 9.1.3, 9.2, 9.4 and 9.11 area - ensuring places are designed to ensure local trips are made by walking and cycling, access to safe routes and green spaces is possible for all residents in all areas, better permeability for walking and cycling and improved accessibility for all is provided in all new developments. Also important is to ensure new developments enhance rather than detract. Should not be too high rise - suggest 9 stories maximum. New developments should not provide car parking. Only developing on brownfield sites and preserving green spaces is important. 206 Happy for the investment in the area, however this needs to be balanced with protecting the natural environment. Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.11 207 As I do not have good vision, I can no longer do proper bird-spotting any more, but love to enjoy listening to bird song. It was so good to have the Waterworks Comments noted. Please refer to Centre, a safe place to go, in relative serenity, with other people around which made you feel safe. Especially as the Waterworks Centre is within easy reach of section 9.11 buses/transport. This really helps disabled people and others to access it and enjoy the adjoining Nature Reserve, filter beds and open land. It also means that you aren't in the way of the excited bustle of young groups of able-bodied people who want to go ice-skating, whilst getting inadvertently shoved around and jostled! I hope you will consider the impact of building in this area of open Metropolitan land, and its effect on the diminishing public green space, for the sake of wildlife and future generations. 208 Too complex to understand all the ramifications. It will also take many years to implement. Comments noted 209 Response from Environment Agency included in Stakeholders Responses Please refer to section 3

120

210 I am writing to express my opposition to the proposal within your 'Lea Valley Eastside Vision' document to rezone the land around the Waterworks Centre for Comments noted. Please refer to housing and land within the ex-Thames Water Depot site for development. The land around the Waterworks Centre and the ex-Thames Water Depot is sections 9.11 and 9.12 Metropolitan Open Land. This means that, under the National Planning Policy Framework and the London Plan, it is protected from inappropriate development. Housing is not, and never will be, appropriate development. The area around the Waterworks Centre is used for leisure and recreation and the Lee Valley Regional Park Act does not empower the Lee Valley Regional Park Authority (LVRPA) to sell off land that is used for leisure and recreation. The LVRPA should not have suggested to you, the London Borough of Waltham Forest, that it is able to develop this land for housing. The land around the Waterworks Centre and the Thames Water Depot is floodplain. It is against both the National Planning Policy Framework and the London Plan to build on floodplain. At no point during the consultations about a new ice rink was anyone told that it would be funded by selling off recreational land. If the LVRPA cannot finance the ice rink without selling off green spaces, then it cannot afford a new ice rink. It is unconscionable that the Council, which purports to represent all residents, would support the selling off of land that people without much disposable income can use for leisure and recreation for free in order to build an ice rink that only those with money can use. Claims that the Waterworks is underused and this justifies closing it are disingenuous. It is underused only because those managing it have let it run into the ground over the last few years. There is so much that could be done to make it a vibrant community hub that pays its way. Not least the reinstatement of the very popular golf course (which we were promised would be returned to us after London 2012 anyway). The semi-natural habitats of the marshes of which the land around the Waterworks Centre is part are a haven for wildlife and home to protected species, including kingfishers, bats and dragonflies. They are also important for migrating birds. Housing on the marshes, so close to the nature reserve, would degrade the environment, polluting it with light and noise, and threaten the viability of important wildlife populations. Over the last few years, we have seen the piecemeal erosion of open space throughout the lower Lea Valley. In each case, those proposing a development have told local people that they are only losing a small piece of land. However, the cumulative effects of these developments are beginning to have a serious impact on the quality of life and the health and well-being of residents. If the LVRPA - the very organisation tasked with protecting some of our most precious green spaces is encouraged by this plan to try and sell off even one acre of Metropolitan Open Land, then it is no exaggeration to say that the spectre of our marshes disappearing under high- rise tower blocks comes one step closer. I'll finish with a statement made by the LVRPA itself in 2011, when it opposed the housing development at Essex Wharf, just across the road from both the Thames Water Depot and the Waterworks Centre: ˜We think it will have a major adverse impact on a large area of the Park. Residential development does not fit within the remit of the Park. I couldn't have said it better myself. Please amend 'Lea Valley Eastside Vision' to ensure that Metropolitan Open Land within the London Borough of Waltham Forest is protected. I would also add that I regularly travel up and down Lea Bridge Road, traffic is already at a standstill for many hours of the day, trains at Lea Bridge and Clapton are already full at peak times so where are these people supposed to fit into travel?! We have already got high levels of pollution in the air, all these extra cars and people will add to the daily struggle, pollution and commute with no consideration taken around the travel in the area. 211 No comments made

121

212 The land around the Waterworks Centre and the ex-Thames Water Depot is Metropolitan Open Land. This means that, under the National Planning Policy Comments noted. Please refer to Framework and the London Plan, it is protected from inappropriate development. Housing is not, and never will be, appropriate development. The area sections 9.11 and 9.12 around the Waterworks Centre is used for leisure and recreation and the Lee Valley Regional Park Act does not empower the Lee Valley Regional Park Authority (LVRPA) to sell off land that is used for leisure and recreation. The LVRPA should not have suggested to you, the London Borough of Waltham Forest, that it is able to develop this land for housing. The land around the Waterworks Centre and the Thames Water Depot is floodplain. It is against both the National Planning Policy Framework and the London Plan to build on floodplain. At no point during the consultations about a new ice rink was anyone told that it would be funded by selling off recreational land. If the LVRPA cannot finance the ice rink without selling off green spaces, then it cannot afford a new ice rink. It is unconscionable that the Council, which purports to represent all residents, would support the selling off of land that people without much disposable income can use for leisure and recreation for free in order to build an ice rink that only those with money can use. Claims that the Waterworks is underused and this justifies closing it are disingenuous. It is underused only because those managing it have let it run into the ground over the last few years. There is so much that could be done to make it a vibrant community hub that pays its way. Not least the reinstatement of the very popular golf course (which we were promised would be returned to us after London 2012 anyway). My son and I walk in the space regularly. The semi-natural habitats of the marshes of which the land around the Waterworks Centre is part are a haven for wildlife and home to protected species, including kingfishers, bats and dragonflies. They are also important for migrating birds. Housing on the marshes, so close to the nature reserve, would degrade the environment, polluting it with light and noise, and threaten the viability of important wildlife populations. Over the last few years, we have seen the piecemeal erosion of open space throughout the lower Lea Valley. In each case, those proposing a development have told local people that they are only losing a small piece of land. However, the cumulative effects of these developments are beginning to have a serious impact on the quality of life and the health and well-being of residents. If the LVRPA - the very organisation tasked with protecting some of our most precious green spaces is encouraged by this plan to try and sell off even one acre of Metropolitan Open Land, then it is no exaggeration to say that the spectre of our marshes disappearing under high-rise tower blocks comes one step closer. Ill finish with a statement made by the LVRPA itself in 2011, when it opposed the housing development at Essex Wharf, just across the road from both the Thames Water Depot and the Waterworks Centre: We think it will have a major adverse impact on a large area of the Park. Residential development does not fit within the remit of the Park. I couldn't have said it better myself. Please amend 'Lea Valley Eastside Vision' to ensure that Metropolitan Open Land within the London Borough of Waltham Forest is protected.

122

213 I object to the proposal within your 'Lea Valley Eastside Vision' document to rezone the land around the Waterworks Centre for housing and land within the Comments noted. Please refer to ex-Thames Water Depot site for development. The land around the Waterworks Centre and the ex-Thames Water Depot is Metropolitan Open Land so under sections 9.11 and 9.12 the National Planning Policy Framework and the London Plan, it is protected from inappropriate development. Housing is not, and never will be, appropriate development. The area around the Waterworks Centre is used for leisure and recreation and the Lee Valley Regional Park Act does not empower the Lee Valley Regional Park Authority (LVRPA) to sell off land that is used for leisure and recreation. The LVRPA should not have suggested to you, the London Borough of Waltham Forest, that it is able to develop this land for housing. The land around the Waterworks Centre and the Thames Water Depot is floodplain. It is against both the National Planning Policy Framework and the London Plan to build on floodplain. There is no serious data about the impact on climate change and traffic on the Lea Bridge Road. At no point during the consultations about a new ice rink was anyone told that it would be funded by selling off recreational land so there was no chance for people opposing that to make objections. It is unconscionable that the Council, which purports to represent all residents, would support the selling off of land that people without much disposable income can use for leisure and recreation for free in order to build an ice rink that only those with money can use. The LVRPA claims that the Waterworks is underused and so should be closed are spurious. There has been no investment and it is rarely open perhaps a deliberate ploy to run it down. There is so much that could be done to make it a vibrant community hub and a gateway to that part of the marshes, which was the original intention for it. Not least the reinstatement of the very popular golf course which was closed against the wishes of many marsh users, who were promised it would be reopened. It never has been. The semi-natural habitats of the marshes of which the land around the Waterworks Centre is part are a haven for wildlife and home to protected species, including kingfishers, bats and dragonflies and of great importance for migrating birds. And the nature reserve itself, like all nature reserves, cannot exist as an island, surrounded by human habitation which produces noise, light and air pollution. Housing on the marshes, so close to the nature reserve, will disrupt the habitat chain and threaten the viability of important wildlife populations. Open green space contributes to the health and wellbeing of people in an increasingly developed and polluted area. It mitigates against the effects of air pollution and provides recreational areas for a growing population. Yet over the last few years, there has been too much loss of and development on open space throughout the lower Lea Valley. The cumulative effects of these developments are beginning to have a serious impact on the quality of life and the health and well-being of residents, not to mention the effects on habitats and wildlife. Although I am a Hackney resident, I go to the marshes every day and the area around the Waterworks Centre is often part of my walk or run. The number of people I see on various areas of the marshes has increased rapidly since 2012 and with all the new developments, both built and planned, many of them high-rise, this increase in numbers will escalate. So LBWF should be looking to increase green space, not to decrease it. The Thames Water depot area should be part of a plan to increase open accessible green space and all development there should be opposed. When the LVRPA opposed the housing development at Essex Wharf, just across the road from both the Thames Water Depot and the Waterworks Centre, it said: We think it will have a major adverse impact on a large area of the Park. Residential development does not fit within the remit of the Park. 214 Free and easy access to all the lea valley is hugely important to me and all my friends, this development will have a huge negative effect on my and many Comment noted. Please refer to others life. sections 9.4 and 9.11 215 Most of the proposal appears to be reasonable. But I cannot agree with any suggestion to develop the area around the Waterworks Centre for housing. See Comments noted. Please refer to comments below. This is floodplain and you build on it at your peril. Leave it wild. sections 9.11 and 9.12 216 The proposals to build on Metropolitan Open Land which was transferred to the Lee Valley Regional Park Authority for protection, blocking a key entry to the Comment noted. Please refer to southern Leyton Marshes and to Hackney Marshes and the Queen Elizabeth II Olympic Park, and blocking the only confirmed public right of way in the former section 9.11 Borough of Leyton. 217 No comments made 218 I do not think that developing on the marshes is right. This land is green space that acts as lungs to the city - providing clean air and respite to many people as Comments noted. Please refer to a counter to the city. The Lea Bridge Road is already a bottle neck - and bringing in more development / cars people will make that even worse. sections 9.1 to 9.1.7 and 9.11 219 If it is true, as was explained to me that this is being done to pre-empt developers coming into the area and developing it without regard to the area and what Comments noted. Please refer to already exists. I think it is very important to retain the businesses that already exist and to increase these if possible, we need more and better employment sections 9.9 opportunities for local people. I dislike the idea of private housing developments; we need affordable rented council housing to be built. there are plenty of properties for sale in the area for Comments noted. Please refer to people to buy there is little or no affordable good quality rented accommodation that is owned by the local authority. section 9.3

123

I am entirely against any building on the nature reserve where the visitor's centre and car park are currently situated; this could and should be kept for the use Comments noted. Please refer to of the local people. if there is to be further housing built we will need all the open space we have to provide a larger local population with open spaces. I am section 9.11 not in favour of the filter beds that are currently inaccessible being made accessible I think these areas should be kept as completely natural and wild places for wildlife. 220 An overall vision embodied in planning policy is the best way to guide development of the area and ensure the unique quality of the Lea Valley. However Comments noted. Please refer to there does not seem to be a strong case for developing on Metropolitan Open Land. This open space becomes more necessary rather than less when there section 9.11 are more homes and more people. 221 Overall the area needs repurposing, more investment and a facelift. Also I recognise the role the council has in providing more possibility for additional Comments noted. Please refer to housing. sections 9.3 and 9.8 222 Welcome improvements and the holistic approach being taken. Support noted 223 Is it very positive to see this vision to activate and enhance the eastern edge of the Lea Valley. However I believe there are gaps within the vision and that the Comments noted. Matters relating to council could go further. Particular points would be: - Massing and Density - Place: Character, Streets and Streetscapes - Connectivity - Delivery use and Mixed detailed design will be considered as Typologies In places the vision already make reference to or expresses an ambition for a number of these, yet the proposed masterplan and interventions fail part of the new Local Plan and in to capture and manifest this vision into a physical architecture i.e. The buildings proposed do not reflect the masterplan policies As such I believe this consideration of any individual document needs to go further in articulating and defining the aspiration so as to nurture the potential physical outcome. MASSING + DENSITY Converting this planning applications against existing hard industrial edge to provide necessary housing is a positive move. However, this rejuvenation should be of an appropriate scale and character of the area planning policy including consideration and not of a continuation of the mega blocks sprawling across Stratford. The large causeway, created by River Lea, Train lines, Depots and the A12, provide a of design aspects. Please refer to clear divide between the City of Stratford and Leyton/Lea Bridge. Although presents a challenge in terms of connectivity, it also provide a threshold between sections 9.2, 9.3 and 9.8. these two clearly defined places. The City of Stratford with its mega sports facilities and Olympic Park has the infrastructure and services to accommodate large scale residential. However, the low rise terraced village of Leyton /Lea Bridge does not. The document refers to the human scale of 6 storeys. In the context of Leyton or Church Road, 6 storey residential blocks are not contextually human and they will look incongruous to the majority of the building stock in Leyton. Already there is a new 16 storey development under-construction at Ruckholt Rd which is to dwarf the row of 2 storey terrace houses behind it. Further to this the scale of the proposed Bywaters scheme seems very heavy and large. The Leyton Orient Matchroom Stadium and Development is an anomaly in the area in terms of height and massing but as a sports ground it represents something different to the community. As such it should stay as an anomaly and not be the standard. Even the new Leyton Central Development, has a large sprawling roof scape which sits incongruously atop an otherwise successful scheme. In fact the affordable housing block along Dunedin Rd is a very successful addition and should be an exemplar for housing in the area. A suggestion would be to be more explicit and careful in defining massing blocks and streets so as to shape and mould future developments which will be sympathetic and referential to the existing fabric. PLACE / CHARACTER The character and urban grain is what defines this area. As such new developments should enhance and compliment this. I believe there is a need to further define and articulate this fact not just in reference to the existing building stock but for future proposals and developments. A suggestion would be to add a specific chapter which pushes this agenda Make places, streets, active frontage and not closed blocks Define street types/ heights and activities. Explicitly express a requirement for quality of build - Materials and finishes Landscaping and the public realm is key. DELIVERY / USE / TYPOLOGY Homes vs units. Waltham Forest have an opportunity to explore other means of delivery beyond the typical. Refer and learn from historical precedents in area (Abrahams and Warner housing) Housing collectives, cooperative offer the chance to provide a diverse portfolio of housing and mixed use developments. http://coinstreet.org/what-we-do/co-operative-housing/applying-for-co-operative-housing/ https://www.fairhazel.org.uk/ In addition there is a growing creative and design community within the 3 areas. As such the council have an opportunity to utilise smaller local designers and small boutique developers to provide smaller mixed use and design led developments. http://www.west9.nl/projects/borneo_sporenburg/ https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/buildings/how-edgley-design-went-from-architect-to-developer-at- godson-street/10009391.article CONNECTIVITY The proposed Ruckholt road Station is a great idea. This should be prioritised to be delivered in phase 1 prior to delivery of homes and Comments noted. Please refer to increased population. This could be financed via CIL contributions. The proposed additional road/cycle/foot connections are a great idea, However there sections 9.1.5 and 9.7 is potential for more. Temple mills lane Bus Station - Marshall lane (In addition to one proposed) Temple mills lane -Westdown rd. Bywater > Spitalfields The vision has 3 distinct areas yet the connectivity between each area is still quite limited, particularly along Orient Way and Church Rd.

224 It will be great to see improvements to the area. However, I am opposed to building on the marsh land around the Waterworks Centre as this will be Comments noted. Please refer to 124

damaging to wildlife and the environment. It is also important that housing developments offer community spaces and contain affordable / social housing. sections 9.3, 9.5 and 9.11

225 Response from London Parks and Gardens Trust (LPGT) included in 3rd Party Representations Please refer to section 4 226 I am a resident of Waltham Forest who has lived in the borough in the Coppermill area since 1993. I frequently walk in the Marshes near my house, on Lee Comments noted. Please refer to Valley Park land. As someone with a back injury and who has suffered from stress, anxiety and depression, it is important to my health and well-being to walk sections 9.11 and 9.12 a lot, in green spaces. I am also a Geography graduate with an interest in the environment and I am aware of the risks of building on flood plains particularly as climate change is increasing flood risk generally and this is a greater issue in my local area which is relatively low lying and is close to the River Lea and its tributaries. I am writing to express my opposition to the proposal within your 'Lea Valley Eastside Vision' document to rezone the land around the Waterworks Centre for housing and land within the ex-Thames Water Depot site for development. The land around the Waterworks Centre and the ex-Thames Water Depot is Metropolitan Open Land. This means that, under the National Planning Policy Framework and the London Plan, it is protected from inappropriate development. Housing is not, and never will be, appropriate development. The area around the Waterworks Centre is used for leisure and recreation (including by me as a walker) and the Lee Valley Regional Park Act does not empower the Lee Valley Regional Park Authority (LVRPA) to sell off land that is used for leisure and recreation. The LVRPA should not have suggested to you, the London Borough of Waltham Forest, that it is able to develop this land for housing. The land around the Waterworks Centre and the Thames Water Depot is floodplain. It is against both the National Planning Policy Framework and the London Plan to build on floodplain. As a Geography graduate I am more aware than most of the flood risks presented by building on floodplain land. At no point during the consultations about a new ice rink was anyone told that it would be funded by selling off recreational land. If the LVRPA cannot finance the ice rink without selling off green spaces, then it cannot afford a new ice rink. It is unconscionable that the Council, which purports to represent all residents, would support the selling off of land that people without much disposable income can use for leisure and recreation for free in order to build an ice rink that only those with money can use. Grants are available from the National Lottery fund for projects which increase ground roots participation in sport and the resulting public health improvement. Claims that the Waterworks is underused and this justifies closing it are disingenuous. It is underused only because those managing it have let it run into the ground over the last few years. There is so much that could be done to make it a vibrant community hub that pays its way. Not least the reinstatement of the very popular golf course (which we were promised would be returned to us after London 2012 anyway). The semi-natural habitats of the marshes of which the land around the Waterworks Centre is part are a haven for wildlife and home to protected species, including kingfishers, bats and dragonflies. They are also important for migrating birds. Housing on the marshes, so close to the nature reserve, would degrade the environment, polluting it with light and noise, and threaten the viability of important wildlife populations. Over the last few years, we have seen the piecemeal erosion of open space throughout the lower Lea Valley. In each case, those proposing a development have told local people that they are only losing a small piece of land. However, the cumulative effects of these developments are beginning to have a serious impact on the quality of life and the health and well-being of residents. If the LVRPA - the very organisation tasked with protecting some of our most precious green spaces is encouraged by this plan to try and sell off even one acre of Metropolitan Open Land, then it is no exaggeration to say that the spectre of our marshes disappearing under high-rise tower blocks comes one step closer. Residents in inner cities really appreciate our green spaces and they are enjoyed by rich and poor, people of all faiths and ethnicities, all ages and abilities. I strongly oppose any building which reduces our access to green spaces and the chance to enjoy watching the wildlife. Ill finish with a statement made by the LVRPA itself in 2011, when it opposed the housing development at Essex Wharf, just across the road from both the Thames Water Depot and the Waterworks Centre: We think it will have a major adverse impact on a large area of the Park. Residential development does not fit within the remit of the Park. I couldn't have said it better myself. Please amend 'Lea Valley Eastside Vision' to ensure that Metropolitan Open Land within the London Borough of Waltham Forest is protected. I have copied in my councillors. With best wishes 227 Good to see general development; better access to the marshes is good; very good to see commitment to keep the allotments. Support noted

125

228 I am neutral on 3,4,6 & 9 until the following comment on them have been investigated. Comments noted. Leyton Midland a. All the new housing developments in the borough have to larger proportion of single bedroom apartments. More 2 & 3 bed room apartments should be station is outside the Vision area. built now. All the rooms should be Parker Morris standard plus at least 10% as the population is bigger and taller than pre-war. Please refer to sections 9.3, 9.8 and b. What proportion of accommodation is going to the public who have a decade of involvement in the borough, i.e. borough residents children, essential jobs 9.11 etc. Will properties be sold to other boroughs to house their homeless? c. The RSPB & Woodland Trust should be informed of the development enabling them to give their comments on it. d. Any loss of Metropolitan Open Land & Green Belt should be kept to the minimum & replaced within the borough. e. Leyton Midlands station re put name on both sides of bridges. f. If new Asda put swimming pool Olympic size under it.

Lea Bridge ID Comments Council Response 1 I agree that it is important to reduce severance and have more walkable and cycleable neighbourhoods. However I am concerned that this regeneration will Comments noted. Please refer to sections lead to inappropriately high rise development around Lea Bridge, and the continued destruction of attractive 20th century industrial buildings. 9.2, 9.7 and 9.8 2 Make some concessions/considerations for the increase in road traffic. Lea Bridge road is a nightmare and I don't see any plans to improve it (I only see plans Comments noted. Please refer to sections to make it narrower and less bus friendly) 9.1.4and 9.1.3 3 No comments made 4 No comments made 5 No comments made 6 No comments made 7 No comments made 8 Per above, very concerned that WF Council will not protect Metropolitan Open Land but will instead turn a blind eye or even encourage destructive Comment noted. Please refer to section development. 9.11 On a positive note increasing / improving access points to the Lea Valley park if done sensitively and sustainably will be an improvement. Support noted. Please refer to sections 9.4 and 9.7 9 Completely agree with making the most of the canal - in Tottenham and Hackney they have done great work with making the canal side a lovely place to be, Support and comments noted. Please lined with pleasant paths and cafes. At the moment, this is nothing but a busy traffic junction full of warehouses. It would be great to see more of an identity refer to sections 9.1.3, 9.1.3 and 9.7 arise and to make the most of the links with the nearby parks, connecting them to Leyton and providing pedestrians paths away from the busy traffic fumes. Bus and cycle lanes should be improved to allow easier, quicker and more pleasant access from Leyton without the need for a car

10 More cycling and walking infrastructure. Discourage car ownership. Comments noted. Please refer to sections 9.1.3 and 9.1.6

126

11 Find a way to stop fly-tipping and litter. It's a scourge in the area and although a resident, I would warn potential newcomers of this problem. The bins outside Comments noted. Please refer to section the ex-Warner flats are unsightly - could there be a way to change this? Could householders be encouraged somehow to improve what is available - i.e. 9.8. maintenance of crumbling brick walls, peeling windows, and overgrown gardens? Make use of the traditional buildings and style of the area or the nature. People go to places like , Columbia Road etc. because they look great, as opposed to Leyton Mills, devoid of character. Perhaps, encourage a style of brick buildings like the ex-Warner flats or using what is there, like The Greyhound Pub or the bridge. Or maybe character can come from the green of the surrounding area. Nature will make this area.

The traffic at the Lea Bridge junction is dreadful and even worse on Orient Way. This all needs changing as soon as possible. A widening of the bridge cannot Comments noted. Please refer to sections come soon enough. 9.1-9.1.7 12 All new development should heavily prioritise cycling and walking. Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.1.3 Places of employment should be preserved at all costs - having people live AND work in the borough creates balanced, thriving communities. Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.9 I find the housing density too high and not in keeping with the area. It is also speculation, which always ends badly. Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.2 13 No comments made 14 As a daily cyclist and walker, I would benefit from these changes. These changes would also positively impact the pollution in the area Support noted. Please refer to section 9.1.3 15 No comments made 16 I believe it's important to make sure that new buildings are not high rise, and are well thought out to encourage happiness and health in residents. This has not Comments noted. Please refer to sections been the case with the initial application approved by the council for the flats near Lea Bridge Station, and this is a worry, as it has definitely been influenced 9.2 and 9.8 by profit over other factors that would increase the environment that residents will be living in. Markhouse corner needs particular attention, as it is currently an area where the community spirit is strong, but (bar the hare and hounds) there are limited Comments noted. Please refer to sections restaurants, retail and leisure venues to make it a destination for the community. This has meant that new restaurants have struggled, and are often only able 9.6 and 9.10 to stay open due to takeaway trade. More thought needs to be put into making this area work together to offer variety and therefore make it destination for locals and visitors. 17 Return former industrial space to marshland rather than artificially landscaped and manicured park. Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.11 18 No comments made 19 Please do keep decent cycle routes through the area, and make as much development as car free as possible Support noted. Please refer to sections 9.1.3 and 9.1.6 20 ANY housing provided should be at least 50% Social housing with rents that local people can actually afford i.e. at Council rents, the units should be Council Comments noted. Please refer to section owned and managed. Any units for sale should be at a price local people can afford to buy. 9.3 Local infrastructure will need to be upgraded, roads, schools, transport, health facilities. Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.5 21 I think there is a great opportunity to bring back to life the shopping / retail element of the Lea Bridge Rd which was clearly destroyed by the creation of an Comments noted. Please refer to section effective dual carriageway and a car thoroughfare. The Mark House Corner should be looked at in a similar way to Baker's Arm retail area and bought back to 9.6 life. 22 Your proposals are an exciting vision that can only improve the area. Support noted

127

23 No comments made 24 The area next to Lea Bridge station has lots of old warehouses, currently housing some great creative communities including an art gallery and art studios. I Comments noted. Please refer to section hope that these don't get demolished, and that they can be restored and the arts community can thrive. I have heard that there is a ceramics studio opening 9.9 with plans for a rooftop garden and cafe in the run down old warehouses. If these kind of places can still operate alongside the new development that would be ideal. I would hate for these creative communities to be evicted to be replaced with a Starbucks or something like that.

25 I would like to see the vision for the Markhouse/ Lea Bridge area. It has so much potential, especially with the library, park, and all the shops. 1) It needs more Support noted. Please refer to section 9.8 trees and greenery in the middle of the main road. The area generally needs tidying up. 2) The island, where the clock tower is, could be incorporated into the Toucan side and pedestrianised. The traffic would need to be diverted. Trees planted in Comments noted. Please refer to sections the centre with benches/ seating area. The cctv location would need to be addressed. 3) Traffic has got too much priority. Pedestrian crossings to the library 9.1 to 9.1.7 and 9.8 would be helpful. 4) Cycle paths definitely need. 26 I would like to see big name chains kept to a minimum where possible. I think using Hackney Wick as a model is great, however it may be unachievable due to Comments noted. Please refer to sections how 'organically grown' that area is. Perhaps a more achievable area to look at would be the new "HereEast" development (sort of Hackney Wick but more 9.6 and 9.9 Stratford)? They've managed to cultivate a great feel even though everything's quite clearly brand new. 27 No comments made 28 No comments made 29 I like the idea of making this more of a destination with shops etc. and opening up access to the waterside. Support noted 30 No comments made 31 No comments made 32 Personally I think the Greyhound has huge potential not just to be reinstated as a pub but to make a great music/arts venue. Noise pollution would not be a Comments noted. Please refer to section problem and its proximity to the station would make it incredibly popular. That said, I applaud the drive to get business thriving in the area. However, to put 9.10 an area on the map there needs to be a something that has soul and nuance to attract independent businesses/trader to setup. 33 No obvious problems with the plan. Support noted 34 Be more ambitious with the proposals for Markhouse Corner - the buildings and businesses there are poor quality, so just let it be known that you will accept Comments noted. Please refer to sections demolition and rebuild at an appropriate scale and mass. A number of those business uses are no longer appropriate for that area (e.g. garage). 9.6 and 9.9 It's also a location that could cope with some height up to about 9-10 stories, at least on corners. This comment applies to all of the major/arterial roads Comments noted. Please refer to sections across the consultation area, but consider their treatment and making them into boulevards rather than just for transmitting cars. That means equal space for 9.1-9.1.7 and 9.2 cars, bikes and pedestrians and lots of street trees. A challenge on the HGV heavy routes, but it is something that makes them attractive to users. 35 No comments made 36 Keep the green space intact and undeveloped. Comments noted. Please refer to sections 9.4 and 9.11 Do not increase homes along this corridor as there is no space for associated essential services, nor can the Lea Bridge Road take any more traffic. Comments noted. Please refer to sections 9.1-9.1.7 and 9.5

37 Leave the Leyton Marches and the Green belt alone! There are plenty of ugly industrial estates to build over, not the green spaces! Comments noted. Please refer to section 9.11

128

38 No comments made 39 No comments made 40 Bridges over north/south infrastructure opening east/west pathways reopen Hall Farm Curve railway line Comments noted. Please refer to sections 9.1.5 and 9.7 41 We don't want building on our marshes. The marshes are protected land. Please refer to section 9.11 42 Tidy up the environment particularly the entrance to the Argyll Estate. Comment noted 43 There is absolutely no need for new developments in this area unless they are 100% social housing. There is no call for more flats that normal working Comments noted. Please refer to section Londoners cannot afford, there is no call for retail developments that will house more chain/corporation businesses, and there is no good reason apart from 9.3 pure greed that a proposal like this would exist. 44 Please see comments above: Whilst it is great to see a coherent vision for this end of Waltham Forest, I think you are wrong in one respect, which is your Comments noted. The former Thames proposal to build on what is currently open green space. You've highlighted on page 19 how important high quality green and open spaces are, including Water site is highlighted as a possible better connectivity. There are two places in your proposal where you are actively working against your stated guiding principle. The first is the current Thames regeneration opportunity with Water site. When it is vacated, it should be returned to park usage. This would increase connectivity between Hackney and Waltham Forest on the south side approximately half the site returned to of the lea bridge road, which is currently a narrow and crowded pavement. It would also improve access between Middlesex Filter Beds and Waterworks, parkland. Please refer to sections 9.7 and which is currently blocked. The second is that you are proposing to build on open green parkland surrounding the Waterworks Nature Reserve visitor centre. 9.11 This is entirely counter to your stated guiding principle, and a completely inconsistent approach. I regularly walk in this area and consider it a clearly delineated part of the wider parkland. Both of these areas are designated as Metropolitan Open Land and so should not be built upon. The London Plan (section 7.17) states "The policy guidance of paragraphs 79-92 of the NPPF on Green Belts applies equally to Metropolitan Open Land (MOL)." ... "Appropriate development should be limited to small scale structures to support outdoor open space uses and minimise any adverse impact on the openness of MOL" 45 Create some empty space that can be a blank canvas to make the new development feel natural and of the local place. This has to be actively built into very Comments noted. Please refer to sections early plans. This could be empty shops / communal spaces / start-up social enterprise space etc.… 9.8 and 9.9 46 No comments made 47 The mix is good: you need enough residential to create a demand for shops, pubs etc. There are a lot of interesting buildings that could be put to better use. Support noted

48 No comments made 49 No comments made 50 No comments made 51 I find these plans quite difficult to read as no roads are marked. Concerned about the width of Lea Bridge Road near the Ice Rink as very narrow for cyclists, Comments noted. Road names have been pedestrians and drivers, difficult to see how it can be widened without losing some green space, one problem with roads and cycle lanes is the varying widths added to key Vision plans including on the cause frustration. main Articulation slide. Please also refer to sections 9.1-9.1.7

52 Lea Bridge needs regeneration- the shop fronts along Lea Bridge Road could definitely be smartened up for instance- but it also needs to maintain its positive Support noted. Please refer to section 9.6 aspects such as open spaces. I am very concerned about the suggestion of the Leyton FC ground being a 'regeneration opportunity' as this endangers the Hare & Hounds pub next door as Comments noted. Please refer to sections well as takes away the old football pitch as a community space. Lea Bridge desperately needs community spaces and facilities of which there are hardly any. 9.4, 9.5 and 9.10 Perhaps if there were this would cut down on anti-social behaviour, which needs to be tackled along with street prostitution. With all of the new developments there also need to be extra doctors’ surgeries and other facilities. 129

53 Improve the current buildings Comments noted. Please refer to sections 9.6 and 9.8 54 Response from Thames21 included in 3rd Party Representations Comments noted. Please refer to section 4 55 Less high rise buildings, there are currently no high rise buildings in the area. the proposed ones for the Burwell road development are ugly and do not fit in Comments noted. Please refer to section with the rest of the area as it is. The illustrations in this consultation seem to propose more high rises on each corner of the Orient Way/ Lea bridge road 9.2 junction, which again don't suit the current area and will block out the light of the existing houses which are all low rise. The density of the building proposals seem very high and will put extreme pressure of the limited transport A bus link to Leyton town centre and to QEOP, Comments noted. Please refer to sections better routes to northern parts of the borough. e.g. town hall more frequent trains at lea bridge and also link to Liverpool Street and Chingford. 9.1-9.1.7 and 9.2 Need better quality more varied shops than at present; too many kebab shops and greasy spoons. And the many independent mini markets there sell stale, Comments noted. Please refer to section out of date food. There needs to be a small chain supermarket e.g.. Tesco metro or Sainsbury's local. Especially as there is no bus link to Asda at Leyton Mills. 9.6 This is needed now, not in ten years. To improve the shop fronts. 56 No comments made 57 No comments made 58 We need green areas around Hackney and in general around London. All the marshes are protected areas, important for humans and animals. Don't build and Comments noted. Please refer to section destroy another area in London. 9.11 59 Please see my comments above - Reference to comments made in Overall Vision 60 Waltham forest need to address social housing; how much of the development will be aimed at existing residents. There are families living in inferior and Comments noted. Please refer to section limited space accommodation. Stop spoiling the borough! 9.3 61 No comments made 62 I didn't see any plan for the part of Lea Bridge opposite the riding centre. I'm a bus driver and can tell you without doubt that the street lighting between Comments noted. Lighting is being Orient Way and the Ice Centre is woefully inadequate. improved throughout Lea Bridge Road as part of the Enjoy Waltham Forest scheme. Please refer to sections 9.1.3 and 9.8

On the other side of the road, the new cycle/pedestrian path seems to be a complete waste of time and money as virtually nobody uses it! The problem with it Comments noted. Please refer to sections is that it wanders away from the road which is completely at odds with cyclist thinking! As it's the council's policy to absolutely adore everything cyclist, I can't 9.1-9.1.7 imagine you'd take any notice of any of this. 63 No comments made 64 Sounds great. More and improved cycle routes. Less traffic. Pollution controls. Improved shops. More planting, greenery, trees etc. Comments noted. Please refer to sections 9.1-9.1.7, 9.6 and 9.8 65 Leave it as a green area Comment noted. Please refer to sections 9.4 and 9.11 66 No comments made 67 Don't use the specific water works area for residential development but mange as a wild life area. Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.11

130

Widen the bridge to avoid bottlenecks, provide limited housing and business expansion. Consider deeds / lease restrictions on properties which are built re Comments noted. Please refer to sections size and type of car residents can park. My experience of environmental housing with 1 designated car park space is that they soon get rammed with 2-3 car 9.1-9.1.7 household spoiling the look and the ease of access. Do something to the traffic lights and the phasing as a cyclist it can take 5 minute to cross 2 segments of the crossing if you are turning right into Orient way. Don't do a mini Holland on the area. It's not worked in Walthamstow and despite considerable negative feedback it still remains. It would bring traffic to a standstill.

Upgrade the Greyhound pub. Comments noted. Please refer to section 9.10 68 See above - Reference to comments made in Overall Vision 69 No comments made 70 1/ since the Clapton end of lea bridge was scene of battles in time of Alfred the Great, suggest you highlight that with renaming streets / properties and/or Comments noted. Naming of any new explanatory notices 2/ while your artist's vision of the new lea bridge is very striking, the street is actually very narrow with large traffic throughput. So adding streets or properties will be carried out as large pavements / cycling paths will narrow too much. Long queues of standing traffic will not improve view or environment part of the planning, highways and postal process. Please refer to sections 9.1.3 and 9.1.5 71 I would like to see less chicken/betting shops and more independent food outlets and some interesting offices/industrial units Comment noted. Please refer to sections 9.6 and 9.9

72 I am particularly concerned with the high rise buildings proposed around the station - they would be particularly imposing when visiting the marshes Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.2 73 I disagree strongly with the proposal for LVRP to dispose of Metropolitan Open Land - and especially if the reason is to fund a new ice rink. An ice rink should Comments noted. Please refer to section be run as a commercial business and pay for itself. I object strongly to my open land being sold off to fund this. I object very strongly to Metropolitan Open 9.11 Land being used for developments. This should be kept - and enhanced - as green open space available freely to us all. 74 Do not encroach and urbanise green natural spaces. Retain a feel of the wild. Comments noted. Please refer to section 9.11 75 DON'T BUILD ON THE WATERWORKS! Respect the Metropolitan Open Land you have names your new area after! It makes a mockery to name the area after Comments noted. Please refer to section the open land you are in fact destroying. Only re-build the ice rink when you have enough funds in a style that fits its position in the Lea Valley and that does 9.11 not extend its current foot-print. 76 There are many reasons to build more houses. If any houses should be built that should be done by the council, owned by the council and be rented on fair Comments noted. Please refer to section rent to people who needs them not only who can afford them. 9.3 77 It would be great to see a destination designed for family's - cafe/soft play/learning centre (e.g. Mudlarks) that was themed on the heritage like the nature Comments noted. Please refer to sections reserve (themes that were seasonal) and had space for push chairs and good changing facilities that had space inside and outside accessibility for push chairs 9.5 and 9.10 that offered a nice walk - currently the whole area feels very dangerous and polluted 78 The area needs more greenery and life at the moment - its too dominated by cars. Comments noted. Please refer to sections 9.1.6 and 9.4

79 No comments made 80 It's pretty smoggy due to traffic, so more trees along the road and less industrial sites, warehouses and car parks would make it a better place to live. Also Comments noted. Please refer to sections

131

please improve the bike lane going into London, it's still skinny and hard to navigate when pedestrians are walking on it. 9.1-9.1.7 and 9.8 If the old B&Q can be turned into a supermarket that sells good fresh food that would be good. There is nothing in the area except an overpriced horrid little Comments noted. Aldi’s Planning Tesco Express. I find it hard to believe residents shop for food here - it's hard to get a weekly shop from a Tesco Express and a corner shop. I do not believe Application to re-model the ex-B&Q store this. If the area is going to attract people who can help the area grow then there needs to be way more amenities. Currently there is takeaways, betting shops as a supermarket (reference number and sleazy bars. It would be good to see a Sainsbury's or Waitrose, coffee shops and restaurants that people will actually want to go in - currently you need to 162943) was approved in March 2017. go out of the area to do/ enjoy this. Please also refer to section 9.6 81 I would like to know why Waltham Forest Council have cut out the streets immediately north of Lea Bridge Road, between Argall Way and Markhouse Road, Comments noted. Please refer to section from the proposal to improve residential areas. Streets such as Hibbert Road, Theydon Street and Flempton Road all suffer antisocial behaviour, fly tipping, 9.6 and are poorly maintained. I would expect the council to include this area given its central location just off Lea Bridge Road and the lack of focus on developing north Markhouse Corner to date. We are part of this community. Like those residents interviewed as part of the consultation process earlier this year, I believe that north Markhouse Corner has been largely forgotten. It is also worth noting that residents of these streets are very much considered part of the Lea Bridge and Markhouse Corner community by local residents. We identify more with Lea Bridge/Leyton than the other local centres of Queens Road and St James. By excluding the residents of these streets you are effectively splitting an organic community which works well. If we were not part of Lea Valley Eastside, how would you classify us? Would we continue to be living in a no-man’s land where we are not considered to be Walthamstow or Leyton residents? How would we identify ourselves? This is something you should think carefully about. Please do consider us as part of this proposal and consultation process. Thank you 82 I believe that this proposal is the thin end of the wedge, opening opportunity for "potential very long term redevelopment" which will further encroach on Comments noted. Please refer to section essential natural open space. Rather than investing in it as an area to protect and enhance as a beautiful and necessary wild green space, it appears to be seen 9.11 as another business opportunity. Foolish, you should be ashamed for even considering it. 83 Over 3000 people have already signed a petition ( https://you.39degrees.org.uk/petitions/stop-the-council-s-plan-to-build-on-leyton-marshes ) calling on the Comments noted. Please refer to sections London Borough of Waltham Forest to scrap its plans to rezone a large swathe of green open space around The Waterworks Centre - part of Leyton marshes - 9.11 and 9.12 for housing, and I am asking you to play your part in ensuring our green open spaces are protected. This land is Metropolitan Open Land, which means it should be protected from all inappropriate development, just like Green Belt land. Housing is not, and never will be, appropriate for Metropolitan Open Land. The founding rationale of the Lee Valley Regional Park was to protect the Park as a green lung for London, and all Authority Members have a duty to uphold this. At no point during the consultations about a new ice rink was anyone told that it would be funded by selling off land presently held for recreational use. To do so would subvert the clear intention of the Act of Parliament with which the Park was founded. Under the Lee Valley Regional Park Act, the Park Authority was given financial independence by virtue of the power to draw a precept from the GLC (now London boroughs) and Essex and , the power to borrow and the power to make charges. In addition, it can receive contributions to its capital facilities from third party bodies. Up until now, the Park Authority has lived within its means, limiting its plans to what it can afford from the resources available to it. To depart from this funding model, by selling off recreational land for development, goes against the principles upon which the Park was established. If the Park Authority concludes that it cannot afford to build a new ice centre without resorting to selling off recreational land for development, then a new ice centre is currently beyond the Park Authority's means.

84 No comments made 85 No comments made 86 No comments made 87 No comments made 88 No comments made 89 No comments made 90 No comments made

132

91 Leave the Metropolitan Open Land as an open space. Do not develop to the west of the railway line, maintain what is left of the marshes as open green space Comments noted. Please refer to sections and avoid building on the flood plain of the River Lea. Create new urban woodland on the former golf course area - look at the success of Wick Woodland in 9.11 and 9.12 Hackney. 92 As stated above. I feel that the area needs development and some investment and so welcome the plans, however this development must be done sensitively Support and comments noted. Please and so as not to dominate existing communities and more importantly the very precious green spaces of the Leyton and Hackney Marshes. As stated earlier I refer to section 9.11 am opposed to losing any green space. I am pleased to see the plans for residential development are for largely car free developments and that the bridges planned will be walking and cycling Support noted. Please refer to sections bridges. I hope that once the superhighway on Lea Bridge Road is built many more people will use this route to cycle through the borough. We do not need 9.1.3 and 9.1.6 more cars and traffic in Waltham Forest. Again I would hope all development is sustainable and built for low energy living and working. 93 Leave the open green spaces alone to help with fitness and mental health. Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.11 94 The council must lead the development of the key sites in the area. If they are left to the private sector it would be a lost opportunity. To achieve quality, high Comments noted. Please refer to section percentages of affordable housing and the best for the area, LBWF must lead the developments using its regeneration team. 9.3 95 Enable the footbridge over the railway lines to be accessible to cyclists, disabled, people with pushchairs, prams etc. At present the steps are prohibitive. Comments noted. Please refer to section 9.7 I oppose the residential led blue areas on Leyton Marsh on the site of the flood relief channel, in-between the railway lines and by the gas holders. This should Comments noted. Please refer to section be kept as open land Metropolitan Open Land. 9.11 96 Anything to improve Lea Bridge is welcomed. I currently take my children to nursery down Lea Bridge Road (via bike) and it has already improved significantly. Support noted. Please refer to section There is a severe lack of facilities (incl. pubs) for locals and the waterfront and the natural beauty of the area is completely obscured. 9.10 97 Please allow public access to new developments - don't want it to be private like new Kings Cross Development. Comments noted. Please refer to section 9.8 98 No comments made 99 Less run down industrial units and more cafes, pubs and bars to attract buyers. Follow Clapton's lead! Comments noted. Please refer to sections 9.9 and 9.10 100 Lea Bridge area definitely need improvement but the planned 20-story tower block near Lea Bridge Station should be much lower. There should be no further Comments noted. Please refer to section high-rise developments. 9.2 Cycle lanes along Lea Bridge Road should be designated giving equal consideration to pedestrians. Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.1.3 I welcome the planned retail between Orient Way and Markhouse Road but do not want more of the kind of shop currently there, i.e. betting shops, tattoos, Comments noted. Please refer to section take-always and social clubs - these are attracting anti-social behaviour and making the area feel unsafe. 9.6 I would welcome new health provision. Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.5 101 More traffic calming Comment noted. Please refer to sections 9.1.3 and 9.1.6 102 The proposed loss of Metropolitan Open Land to housing is an extremely bad deal...... by increasing population density we need more open space, not less. It Comments noted. Please refer to section is environmentally insane to complain about pollution and then set about removing part of the 'green lung' of the area. 9.11

133

103 I am very much in favour of improving access to the marshes both north and south of Lea Bridge road, making the railway feel less like a boundary. There's Support noted also a lot of under-used land that I'd welcome being developed into housing. I am concerned about developments proposed where the waterworks centre is now, but I would accept them if it was the price to pay for an improved ice Comments noted. Please refer to section rink. I would expect though that the area still included full public access to the marshes from Lea Bridge road, and hope to see a café and community space 9.11 continue on the ground floor of any development. I'd also expect there to be a guarantee that no further land will be taken from the marshes. Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.11 104 No comments made 105 Stay away from metropolitan open land and protect this asset which belongs to us and our children and is in the guardianship of the Lea Valley Park. Comments noted. Please refer to section 9.11 Upgrade Lea Bridge Road corridor: landscaping, hard landscaping, increase planting, plant mature trees, increase biodiversity, traffic calm, improve entrances Comments noted. Please refer to sections to the waterworks centre from lb rd., complete the cycle way (little Amsterdam project) and connect it fully to hackney side. 9.1-9.1.7 and 9.8

106 Leave the marshes, green spaces, waterworks and nature reserve as they are. Comments noted. Please refer to section 9.11 107 No comments made 108 I am writing to object - in the strongest possible terms - to the attempt to rezone the land on which the waterworks centre in Leyton marshes sits. The original Comments noted. Please refer to section rationale provided by the planners to allow the waterworks centre and car park to be built argued that the infrastructure was necessary to encourage people 9.11 to use the marshes. at the time, many people campaigned against the erection of these structures. Now (19 Jan 2017) the Lee Valley Regional Park Authority have decided that the waterworks centre is not being used enough, that it is losing money, and thus that it makes sense to rezone the entire area for housing. This feels like a pernicious, devious and underhand attempt to annex Leyton marshes for development, and I must object. The Lea Valley Eastside vision ignores what this land represents: a slice of the wild in the heart of London, one that is enjoyed by many people and animals. Metropolitan Open Land is supposed to be protected - by deviously building the infrastructure of the waterworks centre, and then claiming it is not being used enough to be sustainable (though many people happily enjoyed the marshes before this infrastructure was built - there is absolutely no need for it) it feels as if the council and associated parties are being extremely devious, and betraying their constituents. This must not be allowed to happen. 109 Most of the 'vision' looks encouraging, but I think that building on the former golf course and Waterworks Centre land is a very bad idea. (All the pictorial Support noted. Road names have been diagram maps are very hard to read, because they have so few road names on them, but I have picked up this information from talking to staff at a public added to key Vision plans including on the consultation exhibition). Such a peaceful piece of land, which feels very rural even though it is so close to a main road, and which I often use for cycling, main Articulation slide. Please also refer running or walking, should have clearer signage and pedestrian access from both Lea Bridge Road and Marsh Lane, so that even more people know it is there to section 9.11 and use it. The Lea Valley Parks Authority, as guardians of our natural environment, should not sell current open land in order to finance a new building. I suggest that the new workplace and housing development should instead be on the narrower strips of land along the side of Orient Way, since the proximity to traffic means the green space along there is not particularly attractive. 110 No comments made 111 No comments made 112 No comments made 113 While there are positive aspects in the vision, there isn't an ambition for something that isn't provided at all here- culture, events, community spaces. While Comments noted. LVRPA and the Cultural we are relatively well catered for in terms of food (albeit at the 'value' end of good caffs and kebab shops) and open spaces in the marshes, there isn't Team will be made aware of consultation anywhere to go for a collective experience e.g. film, events, exhibitions, or spaces that could be booked for community events. Can't we think of ways that this responses. Please refer to sections 9.5 could happen? I am happy to help look into funding and partnerships perhaps as part of either our residents group or my Community Interest Company which and 9.10 134

has been successful with grants from both WF council and the Heritage Lottery Fund. Something along the lines of Blackhorse Workshop or Gnome House would be great down by the station. Please let me know if I can help. There have been some temporary events (Secret Cinema, Hitchcock screening on the marshes) that have worked amazingly well but something more lasting would be great. It is such a shame that the development at 97 Lea bridge road wasn't held off until this came out though- it is going to stick out like a sore thumb in terms of Comments noted. Please refer to section bad quality design and density which is completely out of keeping with the area and contains nothing for the local community. The consultation and planning 9.2 process was very poor in terms of taking on board constructive comments from the local community, and the development resulted in 20 businesses leaving the borough. The council could have more confidence that they can say no to developers if they are not completely happy, they won't be going anywhere for a while.

I also wish there could be more done to make Orient Way and Lea Bridge Road safer. there have been several deaths on the roads recently and they are used Comments noted. Please refer to sections as racetracks at night. I don't know if mini Holland is really going to help this aspect much but the area won't be improved a great deal if it can't be travelled 9.1-9.1.7 around without the danger of being mown down by a speeding driver. 114 See all answers in 3 - Reference to comments made on Overall Vision 115 Take out the proposals concerning the Waterworks Centre. Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.11 Reduce height of proposed residential developments in the area around Lea Bridge station. Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.2 116 I feel the Lea Bridge area is in the most need of development. It is the least desirable area to live in the area and has the poorest selection of amenities. I think Support noted. Please refer to section 9.5 the development of mixed-use development is a great idea and the beautification of the area round the waterways could transform the feel of the area. I agree with the report that this should still be right for the people who live there already not just make new more affluent people to the area. I like the idea of a community space and Lea Bridge does not feel like it has a centre for things to be based round. The new station as long as it is well connected will attract business and people to the area. So the area around the station will be critical to the areas success.

117 No comments made 118 I am keen to see redevelopment in the area, particularly the facia of Markhouse Corner. I like the idea of more industrial sites and more homes, however I'm Support noted. Please refer to sections conscious they been suitable for the area and we have improved infrastructure to support them. 9.5 and 9.6 I would like to retain as much green space as possible and improving walking and cycling routes, as well as a bus route down Orient Way. Comments noted. Please refer to sections 9.1.3 and 9.4

119 I think it’s a good idea to increase access to the green spaces, new bridges and footpaths into the area are a good idea. Especially ones that take into account Support noted. Please refer to section 9.4 wheelchair users, families with buggies and cyclists, at present there are very few way for these people to access the marshes, which is a real shame as it is and 9.7 such a beautiful piece of wilderness. I think opening up access to the nature reserve is also a good idea. My major concern is the building on green space which would be a real loss to the area. Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.11 I also think that the idea of trying to make a creative hub is a good one - similar to the development at HereEAST or the workshops at Blackhorse road. I am Support noted. Please refer to section 9.9 not sure how you will be able to facilitate this but it is a proven strategy that the creative and arts industries really improve the area and help it become more vibrant and exciting place to live. 120 The marshes should be improved as a recreation and sports area. More trees should be planted and the vision should follow what the Olympic park has Comments noted. Please refer to sections achieved. 9.8 and 9.11

135

121 A balance needs to be struck so that the area doesn't become a dormitory but that creative life is pumped in giving residents a reason to visit and spend Comments noted. Please refer to sections money in the local economy. More thought is therefore required on recreational and leisure space and facilities. 9.5 and 9.10 122 I also think the frequency of the trains from Lea bridge station needs to be improved because 2 an hour is not enough and it is not enough to persuade visitors Comments noted. Please refer to sections to come. The connections need to be better and more frequent and they need to run at the weekend. Ideally it would connect with Hackney as well as Clapton 9.1-9.1.7 is so close but only accessible by Bus. I think the area is lacking in nice coffee shops and pubs. Having moved from Hackney I think there is a lot of room for improvement. I am currently still going Comments noted. Please refer to sections into Hackney at the weekend as there is not enough going on in the area and also because it is very run down. 9.6 and 9.10

123 I also think the frequency of the trains from Lea bridge station needs to be improved because 2 an hour is not enough and it is not enough to persuade visitors Comments noted. Please refer to sections to come. The connections need to be better and more frequent and they need to run at the weekend. Ideally it would connect with Hackney as well as Clapton 9.1-9.1.7 is so close but only accessible by Bus. I think the area is lacking in nice coffee shops and pubs. Having moved from Hackney I think there is a lot of room for improvement. I am currently still going Comments noted. Please refer to sections into Hackney at the weekend as there is not enough going on in the area and also because it is very run down. 9.6 and 9.10

124 No comments made 125 Leave the area as a green space for local residents to exercise, socialise and enjoy. This country has a huge obesity crisis, taking away a green space that allows Comments noted. Please refer to section people to exercise for free and enjoy their natural surroundings will do nothing to improve the health and life expectancy of the borough's residents. 9.11

126 I strongly object to any residential or commercial development of a type on the waterworks site. Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.11 127 I am writing to express my vociferous opposition to the proposal within your 'Lea Valley Eastside Vision' document to rezone the land around the Waterworks Comments noted. Please refer to section Centre for housing and land within the ex-Thames Water Depot site for development. The area is an important space for wildlife - it is home to a variety of 9.11 snakes, birds and insects, and a place where local residents and Londoners from further afield can explore nature. Housing on the marshes, so close to the nature reserve, would degrade the environment, polluting it with light and noise, and threaten the viability of important wildlife populations. Over the last few years, we have seen the piecemeal erosion of open space throughout the lower Lea Valley. In each case, those proposing a development have told local people that they are only losing a small piece of land. However, the cumulative effects of these developments has drastically altered the composition of the area, and is beginning to have a serious impact on the quality of life and the health and well-being of residents. Mental health and access to nature are inextricably intertwined. If the LVRPA - the very organisation tasked with protecting some of our most precious green spaces is encouraged by this plan to try and sell off even one acre of Metropolitan Open Land, then it is no exaggeration to say that the spectre of our marshes disappearing under high-rise tower blocks comes one step closer. Waltham Forest residents will lose much of what makes the Borough more liveable, in exchange for increased concrete, pollution and a decreased quality of life. Ill finish with a statement made by the LVRPA itself in 2011, when it opposed the housing development at Essex Wharf, just across the road from both the Thames Water Depot and the Waterworks Centre: ˜We think it will have a major adverse impact on a large area of the Park. Residential development does not fit within the remit of the Park. I couldn't have said it better myself. Please amend 'Lea Valley Eastside Vision' to ensure that Metropolitan Open Land within the London Borough of Waltham Forest is protected. 128 No comments made

136

129 RE: LEA BRIDGE AND LEYTON CONSULTATION I write to express my strong opposition to the proposal within your 'Lea Valley Eastside Vision' document to Comments noted. Please refer to sections rezone the land around the Waterworks Centre for housing and land within the ex-Thames Water Depot site for development. The land around the 9.11 and 9.12 Waterworks Centre and the ex-Thames Water Depot is Metropolitan Open Land. This means that, under the National Planning Policy Framework and the London Plan, it is protected from inappropriate development. Housing is not, and never will be, appropriate development. The area around the Waterworks Centre is used for leisure and recreation and the Lee Valley Regional Park Act does not empower the Lee Valley Regional Park Authority (LVRPA) to sell off land that is used for leisure and recreation. The LVRPA should not have suggested to you, the London Borough of Waltham Forest, that it is able to develop this land for housing. The land around the Waterworks Centre and the Thames Water Depot is floodplain. It is against both the National Planning Policy Framework and the London Plan to build on floodplain. At no point during the consultations about a new ice rink was anyone told that it would be funded by selling off recreational land. If the LVRPA cannot finance the ice rink without selling off green spaces, then it cannot afford a new ice rink. It is unconscionable that the Council, which purports to represent all residents, would support the selling off of land that people without much disposable income can use for leisure and recreation for free in order to build an ice rink that only those with money can use. Claims that the Waterworks is underused and this justifies closing it are disingenuous. It is underused only because those managing it have let it run into the ground over the last few years. There is so much that could be done to make it a vibrant community hub that pays its way. Not least the reinstatement of the very popular golf course (which we were promised would be returned to us after London 2012 anyway). The semi-natural habitats of the marshes of which the land around the Waterworks Centre is part are a haven for wildlife and home to protected species, including kingfishers, bats and dragonflies. They are also important for migrating birds. Housing on the marshes, so close to the nature reserve, would degrade the environment, polluting it with light and noise, and threaten the viability of important wildlife populations. Even if the land under proposal for development is currently is ˜underused, it provides an important and vital buffer zone to the adjacent areas of natural beauty and wildlife. To build houses on this land would not only destroy the Metropolitan Open Land on which it is built, but also adversely affect visitors’ enjoyment of the park close by, and further impinge on the flora and wildlife. Over the last few years, we have seen the piecemeal erosion of open space throughout the lower Lea Valley. In each case, those proposing a development have told local people that they are only losing a small piece of land. However, the cumulative effects of these developments are beginning to have a serious impact on the quality of life and the health and well-being of residents. If the LVRPA - the very organisation tasked with protecting some of our most precious green spaces is encouraged by this plan to try and sell off even one acre of Metropolitan Open Land, then it is no exaggeration to say that the spectre of our marshes disappearing under high-rise tower blocks comes one step closer. Ill finish with a statement made by the LVRPA itself in 2011, when it opposed the housing development at Essex Wharf, just across the road from both the Thames Water Depot and the Waterworks Centre: ˜We think it will have a major adverse impact on a large area of the Park. Residential development does not fit within the remit of the Park. This seems clear and contrary to your proposals. Please amend 'Lea Valley Eastside Vision' to ensure that Metropolitan Open Land within the London Borough of Waltham Forest is protected.

130 No comments made 131 Return it to Metropolitan Open Land as it should be, apart from the existing buildings Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.11 132 See above - Reference to comments made on Overall Vision 133 Please amend 'Lea Valley Eastside Vision' to ensure that Metropolitan Open Land within the London Borough of Waltham Forest is protected. Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.11

137

134 Dear Sir or Madam, I am writing to express my opposition to the proposal within your 'Lea Valley Eastside Vision' document to rezone the land around the Comments noted. Please refer to sections Waterworks Centre for housing and land within the ex-Thames Water Depot site for development. The land around the Waterworks Centre and the ex- 9.11 and 9.12 Thames Water Depot is Metropolitan Open Land. This means that, under the National Planning Policy Framework and the London Plan, it is protected from inappropriate development. Housing is not, and never will be, appropriate development. The area around the Waterworks Centre is used for leisure and recreation and the Lee Valley Regional Park Act does not empower the Lee Valley Regional Park Authority (LVRPA) to sell off land that is used for leisure and recreation. The LVRPA should not have suggested to you, the London Borough of Waltham Forest, that it is able to develop this land for housing. The land around the Waterworks Centre and the Thames Water Depot is floodplain. It is against both the National Planning Policy Framework and the London Plan to build on floodplain. At no point during the consultations about a new ice rink was anyone told that it would be funded by selling off recreational land. If the LVRPA cannot finance the ice rink without selling off green spaces, then it cannot afford a new ice rink. It is unconscionable that the Council, which purports to represent all residents, would support the selling off of land that people without much disposable income can use for leisure and recreation for free in order to build an ice rink that only those with money can use. Claims that the Waterworks is underused and this justifies closing it are disingenuous. It is underused only because those managing it have let it run into the ground over the last few years. There is so much that could be done to make it a vibrant community hub that pays its way. Not least the reinstatement of the very popular golf course (which we were promised would be returned to us after London 2012 anyway). The semi-natural habitats of the marshes of which the land around the Waterworks Centre is part are a haven for wildlife and home to protected species, including kingfishers, bats and dragonflies. They are also important for migrating birds. Housing on the marshes, so close to the nature reserve, would degrade the environment, polluting it with light and noise, and threaten the viability of important wildlife populations. Over the last few years, we have seen the piecemeal erosion of open space throughout the lower Lea Valley. In each case, those proposing a development have told local people that they are only losing a small piece of land. However, the cumulative effects of these developments are beginning to have a serious impact on the quality of life and the health and well-being of residents. If the LVRPA - the very organisation tasked with protecting some of our most precious green spaces is encouraged by this plan to try and sell off even one acre of Metropolitan Open Land, then it is no exaggeration to say that the spectre of our marshes disappearing under high-rise tower blocks comes one step closer. Ill finish with a statement made by the LVRPA itself in 2011, when it opposed the housing development at Essex Wharf, just across the road from both the Thames Water Depot and the Waterworks Centre: ˜We think it will have a major adverse impact on a large area of the Park. Residential development does not fit within the remit of the Park. I couldn't have said it better myself. Please amend 'Lea Valley Eastside Vision' to ensure that Metropolitan Open Land within the London Borough of Waltham Forest is protected. Regards

135 I've lived in the area for 6 years. We've seen and welcomed a slow, natural increase in people visiting the area in the previous 3 years which strongly signifies Comments noted. Please refer to section and proves that the area is mutually hospitable, welcoming, safe and accommodating to families, boats on the canal, dog-walkers, hikers, the most 9.8 importantly the environment the wildlife require to live in.¨ It doesn't require a make-over - especially as the proposed drawings look utterly generic and characterless much like other building travesties that plague London.¨ 'Development wants/Development gets' because Money Talks - however I'm not 100% against any form of development but please, employ some talented architects and designers that can create a practical, almost simple and maintainable landscape in coordination of how already looks 136 I've lived in the area for 6 years.¨ We've seen and welcomed a slow, natural increase in people visiting the area in the previous 3 years which strongly signifies Comments noted. Please refer to section and proves that the area is mutually hospitable, welcoming, safe and accommodating to families, boats on the canal, dog-walkers, hikers, the most 9.8 importantly the environment the wildlife require to live in.¨ It doesn't require a make-over - especially as the proposed drawings look utterly generic and characterless much like other building travesties that plague London.¨ 'Development wants/Development gets' because Money Talks - however I'm not 100% against any form of development but please, employ some talented architects and designers that can create a practical, almost simple and maintainable landscape in coordination of how already looks 137 The "vision" for Lea Bridge is a total fantasy. As someone who lives in this area , the picture on page 39 indicates that the person has never been to the Comments noted location shown in the picture. If they had they would know that there is constant stream of traffic at all hours. I am concerned that the "vision" envisages development of 3 - 6 storeys in the area and " greater height around Lea Bridge Station" as part of a "new local Comments noted. Please refer to sections Centre" How will development on this scale transform the environment of Lea Bridge Road for the better? It will only bring about an even greater level of 9.1.1, 9.1.6, 9.1.7 and 9.2 congestion and pollution than already exists.

138

I also totally oppose the proposal to redesignate the area around the Waterworks Centre, an area of Metropolitan Open land, for development. This is an area Comments noted. Please refer to sections of public open space and should always remain so. The Lee Valley Regional Park should not be allowed to expand the Ice Rink or build residential and 9.11 and 9.12 commercial development on green, protected space, which incidentally also lies in a flood plain. Finally, I believe that the Council should work with the residents of Lea Bridge to produce a Neighbourhood Plan, which better reflects what actually want for the area, rather than being imposed on them.

138 Hi I am writing to express my opposition to the proposal within your 'Lea Valley Eastside Vision' document to rezone the land around the Waterworks Centre Comments noted. Please refer to sections for housing and land within the ex-Thames Water Depot site for development. The land around the Waterworks Centre and the ex-Thames Water Depot is 9.11 and 9.12 Metropolitan Open Land. This means that, under the National Planning Policy Framework and the London Plan, it is protected from inappropriate development. Housing is not, and never will be, appropriate development. The area around the Waterworks Centre is used for leisure and recreation and the Lee Valley Regional Park Act does not empower the Lee Valley Regional Park Authority (LVRPA) to sell off land that is used for leisure and recreation. The LVRPA should not have suggested to you, the London Borough of Waltham Forest, that it is able to develop this land for housing. The land around the Waterworks Centre and the Thames Water Depot is floodplain. It is against both the National Planning Policy Framework and the London Plan to build on floodplain. At no point during the consultations about a new ice rink was anyone told that it would be funded by selling off recreational land. If the LVRPA cannot finance the ice rink without selling off green spaces, then it cannot afford a new ice rink. It is unconscionable that the Council, which purports to represent all residents, would support the selling off of land that people without much disposable income can use for leisure and recreation for free in order to build an ice rink that only those with money can use. Claims that the Waterworks is underused and this justifies closing it are disingenuous. It is underused only because those managing it have let it run into the ground over the last few years. There is so much that could be done to make it a vibrant community hub that pays its way. Not least the reinstatement of the very popular golf course (which we were promised would be returned to us after London 2012 anyway). The semi-natural habitats of the marshes of which the land around the Waterworks Centre is part are a haven for wildlife and home to protected species, including kingfishers, bats and dragonflies. They are also important for migrating birds. Housing on the marshes, so close to the nature reserve, would degrade the environment, polluting it with light and noise, and threaten the viability of important wildlife populations. Over the last few years, we have seen the piecemeal erosion of open space throughout the lower Lea Valley. In each case, those proposing a development have told local people that they are only losing a small piece of land. However, the cumulative effects of these developments are beginning to have a serious impact on the quality of life and the health and well-being of residents. If the LVRPA - the very organisation tasked with protecting some of our most precious green spaces is encouraged by this plan to try and sell off even one acre of Metropolitan Open Land, then it is no exaggeration to say that the spectre of our marshes disappearing under high-rise tower blocks comes one step closer. Ill finish with a statement made by the LVRPA itself in 2011, when it opposed the housing development at Essex Wharf, just across the road from both the Thames Water Depot and the Waterworks Centre: ˜We think it will have a major adverse impact on a large area of the Park. Residential development does not fit within the remit of the Park. I couldn't have said it better myself. Please amend 'Lea Valley Eastside Vision' to ensure that Metropolitan Open Land within the London Borough of Waltham Forest is protected. I look forward to hearing from you

139 Metropolitan Open Land should remain as it is and not be re-zoned. Green, open spaces are disappearing all over London. I would strongly favour keeping the Comments noted. Please refer to section Waterworks Centre; upgrading it and marketing it more strongly so that it is used more by the general public. Furthermore, the very popular golf course could 9.11 be brought back into use.

139

140 To Waltham Forest Council: I oppose the proposal in the 'Lea Valley Eastside Vision', to rezone as Housing, the Waterworks Centre and surrounding land, for Comments noted. Please refer to sections the following reasons: The Waterworks Centre is situated on Metropolitan Open Land (MOL). Under the National Planning Policy Framework and the London 9.11 and 9.12 Plan, MOL designated land is protected from inappropriate development. Housing is not appropriate development. The Waterworks Centre and surrounding area is used for leisure and recreation. The Lee Valley Regional Park Act does not empower the Lee Valley Regional Park Authority (LVRPA) to sell off land that is used for leisure and recreation. The LVRPA should not have suggested to Waltham Forest Council, that it could offer up this land for the purpose of housing development. The land around the Waterworks Centre is a natural floodplain. It is against both the National Planning Policy Framework and the London Plan to build on floodplain. The LVRPA has indicated potential financial reasons for proposing to sell off the Waterworks Centre land and buildings, citing the need to enlarge the Ice Centre. The LVRPA appears to be exploiting the known support for the Ice Centre in the borough and the Council's wish for it to remain as a local facility. During the public consultations about the enlargement of the Ice Centre the LVRPA did not flag up the idea of funding it by means of selling off recreational land elsewhere. The LVRPA has other financial means for raising capital, such as using its own reserves of £17m, and has borrowing powers. The LVRPA's Waterworks Centre is underused because those managing it have let it run into the ground over the last few years. Yet at the same time the imminent building of the new estate at 97 Lea Bridge Road prompts the needs of thousands of new residents for recreational activities connected with the adjacent marshland. There is so much that could be done to make the Waterworks Centre a vibrant community hub including, for instance, the reinstatement of the popular golf course, which the LVRPA originally planned to reinstate after the London 2012 Olympics. The semi-natural habitats of the marshes of which the land around the Waterworks Centre is part are a haven for wildlife and home to protected species, including kingfishers, bats and dragonflies. They are also important for migrating birds. Housing on the marshes, so close to the nature reserve, would degrade the environment, polluting it with light and noise, and threaten the viability of important wildlife populations. Over the last few years, there has been piecemeal erosion of open space throughout the lower Lea Valley. One example is the housing development at Essex Wharf, Lea Bridge Road. At the time, 2011, the LVRPA itself opposed it saying ˜We think it will have a major adverse impact on a large area of the Park. Residential development does not fit within the remit of the Park. The cumulative effects of these developments are beginning to impact on the quality of life and the health and well-being of residents, yet the Council is spending £15m on improving the environment of Lea Bridge Road under the Enjoy Waltham Forest scheme, for the purposes of improving health and well-being. Allowing more and more residential development along the Lea Bridge Road corridor will negate these efforts. Please amend 'Lea Valley Eastside Vision' to ensure that Metropolitan Open Land within the London Borough of Waltham Forest continues to be protected.

141 No comments made 142 Allow open land to retain its existing use. Comments noted. Please refer to section 9.11 143 Keep the regeneration to brownfield sites only, spruce up the waterworks, reinstate the golf driving range and pitch'n'putt area and include other small floor Comments noted. Please refer to sections space sports facilities, such as boules, cricket nets, volleyball etc. Or at the very least, open that area up as a campsite again. It was nice to see people using the 9.5 and 9.11 space London has to offer. Not more housing on green spaces, please. 144 No comments made 145 To maintain and extend the open land in the spirit with which it was initially protected - as a green lung for London and an area for wildlife. Comments noted. Please refer to section 9.11 146 No comments made 147 No comments made 148 No comments made 149 Do not build on Parkland. Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.11 150 No comments made

140

151 The land around the Waterworks Centre and the ex-Thames Water Depot is Metropolitan Open Land. This means that, under the National Planning Policy Comments noted. Please refer to sections Framework and the London Plan, it is protected from inappropriate development. Housing is not, and never will be, appropriate development. The area 9.11 and 9.12 around the Waterworks Centre is used for leisure and recreation and the Lee Valley Regional Park Act does not empower the Lee Valley Regional Park Authority (LVRPA) to sell off land that is used for leisure and recreation. The LVRPA should not have suggested to you, the London Borough of Waltham Forest, that it is able to develop this land for housing. The land around the Waterworks Centre and the Thames Water Depot is floodplain. It is against both the National Planning Policy Framework and the London Plan to build on floodplain. At no point during the consultations about a new ice rink was anyone told that it would be funded by selling off recreational land. If the LVRPA cannot finance the ice rink without selling off green spaces, then it cannot afford a new ice rink. It is unconscionable that the Council, which purports to represent all residents, would support the selling off of land that people without much disposable income can use for leisure and recreation for free in order to build an ice rink that only those with money can use. Claims that the Waterworks is underused and this justifies closing it are disingenuous. It is underused only because those managing it have let it run into the ground over the last few years. There is so much that could be done to make it a vibrant community hub that pays its way. Not least the reinstatement of the very popular golf course (which we were promised would be returned to us after London 2012 anyway). The semi-natural habitats of the marshes of which the land around the Waterworks Centre is part are a haven for wildlife and home to protected species, including kingfishers, bats and dragonflies. They are also important for migrating birds. Housing on the marshes, so close to the nature reserve, would degrade the environment, polluting it with light and noise, and threaten the viability of important wildlife populations. Over the last few years, we have seen the piecemeal erosion of open space throughout the lower Lea Valley. In each case, those proposing a development have told local people that they are only losing a small piece of land. However, the cumulative effects of these developments are beginning to have a serious impact on the quality of life and the health and well-being of residents. If the LVRPA - the very organisation tasked with protecting some of our most precious green spaces is encouraged by this plan to try and sell off even one acre of Metropolitan Open Land, then it is no exaggeration to say that the spectre of our marshes disappearing under high-rise tower blocks comes one step closer. Ill finish with a statement made by the LVRPA itself in 2011, when it opposed the housing development at Essex Wharf, just across the road from both the Thames Water Depot and the Waterworks Centre: ˜We think it will have a major adverse impact on a large area of the Park. Residential development does not fit within the remit of the Park. I couldn't have said it better myself. Please amend 'Lea Valley Eastside Vision' to ensure that Metropolitan Open Land within the London Borough of Waltham Forest is protected.

152 As above more details are required on transportation and how additional residents will move around Comment noted. Please refer to sections 9.1-9.1.7 153 Need to preserve MOL including Waterworks Centre as the rest of the borough is becoming more densely populated and we need to retain and expand the Comment noted. Please refer to section use of our existing open spaces and facilities. 9.11 154 Response from Leyton Orient Trust is considered under 3rd party representations Please refer to section 4 155 Protect and maintain the green spaces. Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.11 156 I can see potential in the plans to redevelop around the station. See above for reservations about the waterworks site. Comments noted. Please refer to section 9.11 157 No comments made 158 No comments made 159 As above - Reference to comments made on Overall Vision 160 As above - Reference to comments made on Overall Vision 161 No comments made

141

162 I agree that this is an important potential hub, but not at a loss of green space and increase of residential needs to be sensitive and in line with resources Comment noted. Please refer to section available. 9.5, 9.8 and 9.11 Is there any health centres in the planning for instance - something that needs to be addressed. Comments noted. Please refer to section 9.5 163 No comments made 164 No comments made 165 As above - Reference to comments made on Overall Vision 166 As above - Reference to comments made on Overall Vision 167 No comments made 168 No comments made 169 Keep Lea Bridge Road bus lanes to alleviate congestion and keep the workforce moving. The bus lanes have been around for some 20 years and to displace Comments noted. Please refer to section them will only cause more misery already felt by commuters who use the road on a daily basis. 9.1.3 170 No comments made 171 Bring back our facilities removed before the Olympic development i.e. Golf centre at waterworks. Advertise these facilities and develop their use through Comments noted. Please refer to sections schools and local people. Develop pride in our unique metropolitan green spaces including our industrial history. Do not sanitise all that makes this area a 9.5 and 9.11 unique hidden gem. We do not all thrive on retail only and living in sanitised flat developments that make a small fortune for multinational developers who have little regard for the health and well-being of local people.

There is already "brown field" use of land in this area that could be regenerated - this does not include our green spaces such as the island area just north of Comments noted. Please refer to section Lea Bridge road that already has flats. During the Olympic development we were promised that there would not be developments such as these and that 9.11 people were getting upset unnecessarily.... Yet here it is 172 As above - Reference to comments made on Overall Vision 173 Reduce the number of new homes/intensity of new buildings. Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.2 174 Staffa Road is a dark and murky street. The lamppost doesn't even work and it doesn't feel safe walking there. We've had a constant mouse issue inside our Comments noted. Issues raised have been home over the years and we've noticed they all come from the dirty factories. The dust issue especially when trucks drive by, the trail gathers into a full-on passed on to be investigated by the dust-storm. Making me feel as if I'm living in the Sahara desert (without the benefit of the hot sun!). The effect of the pollution and its detriment to mine and Waltham Forest’s Neighbourhoods Team. my neighbours’ long-term health cannot be underestimated. I've had a long-standing issue with congested nostrils and my wife has had skin issues ever since Please also refer to section 9.1.7. she moved in with me. No.67 said that she blames her health and that of some of our neighbours directly on the pollution from the dirty factories. The level of noise pollution is crazy. We have people shouting at each other, loud trucks horning throughout the night & day, the sound of metal being smashed. I can go on and on. All of which affects children's nap and sleeping times. As a growing family, I'm feel very concerned about these types of factories staying here long term. Some people proudly boast they were raised in a farm; I boast• I was raised in factory! I think it would be a great initiative I'm very happy with the plans for the new medical/health centre, new shops on the main road and possible new coffee shops and new office spaces to rent. Support noted. Please refer to section 9.5

As a freelancer, I'm in the business of needing new office spaces to rent from time to time. I just hope the rent isn't too expensive and beyond our budget. If Comments noted. Please refer to section you offer a local discount scheme for us locals that would AMAZING. 9.9

142

Finally, I must add, I'm not a big fan of the new massive 19 storey high rises that are being built. The max height you should have done is about 9 or 10 storeys Comments noted. Please refer to section high to be honest. .These tall buildings will look out of place here. 9.2 Orient Way: I've voiced concerns in the past to the council about the dangerous nature of the road. The road needs at least 2 speed cameras, especially in the Comments noted. Please refer to section middle along the bend. Road users are ALWAYS tailgating and overtaking, putting themselves and other drivers at immense risk. Personally, I always try to 9.1.1 avoid driving on Orient Way after dark when drivers do more dangerous things. My school friend died after having an accident on this 1mile stretch of road some years ago and since then I've seen flowers and police sign boards placed due horrendous accidents that are still taking place. The council must act sooner rather than later.

Old B&Q Site I was told by your Lea Valley Eastside Vision representatives, when I attended the exhibition that negotiations had broken down between the Comments noted. The correct information owner and Aldi and, after that, Lidl. And due to this they may consider building a new residential block instead. This is the wrong move to make. As a local is that Aldi have purchased the site and resident, I can tell you that, of a higher priority than housing, is the need for a local supermarket! their Planning Application (reference number is 162943) was approved in March 2017. I am a 63 year old pensioner with long-term knee problems who has difficulty walking to the nearest bus stop on Lea Bridge Road. I am, firstly, over the moon Support noted. Please refer to sections with the idea of opening a new bus route on Argall Way and, secondly, also very happy with idea of opening multiple pathways through the industrial estates 9.1.7 and 9.7 on Staffa Road leading onto Argall Way & Lea Bridge Road. I can’t find the words to explain how much it would help me with travelling to my weekly exercise classes in Walthamstow and Leytonstone.

Its noisy, people beeping their horns until about 4am in the morning and then 5:30am in the morning the trucks start coming in. The dust in unbearable. We Comments noted. Issues raised have been don't put our clothes out on the line during the week because they come back in filled out with dirt and dust. We can feel the vibrations from the huge trucks passed on to be investigated by the that pass by the side of our house every single day. Antisocial behaviour with drunk people coming through Staffa Road coming in drinking and dumping their Waltham Forest’s Neighbourhoods Team. beer cans wherever they want. In the morning, we always notice elements of substance abuse and urine on the front and side of our walls cornering Overton Please refer to section 9.1.7. Road and Staffa Road. Seven months ago, the council put up a lamppost to replace one that was falling over and it doesn't even work yet. This entire area is and has been neglected for a very, very long time. We have those big containers from those companies in the industrial estate sitting right on the pavement on Staffa Road and I can’t even walk past it with my Comments noted. Issues raised have been shopping trolley. Also the pollution and the dust in the area from the metal breakers yard and the Malbay company is too much. I can’t take it anymore. On passed on to be investigated by the the new development on Burwell Road they have installed a large white sheet to cover the dust. I ask you, how about us?! We have no protection from the Waltham Forest’s Neighbourhoods Team. extreme dust that these factories produce every single day. It completely horrible and unsightly. I would like to see the factories moved and replaced with Please refer to section 9.1.7. some houses maybe (not those large flats) and a park. All we want is peace and quiet and nice neighbours.

They park on the side of my house, on the pavement so close to my wall and I don't feel comfortable walking around my house because they can see inside. Comments noted. Issues raised have been They sit in the car all day. We also have drunk people going past and throwing rubbish like crisp packets, beer cans on my wall and in my garden. The noise is passed on to be investigated by the unbearable, the windows are closed and the dust keeps piling up. Waltham Forest’s Neighbourhoods Team. Please refer to section 9.1.7.

The noise in the early morning is very loud and disturbing. I clean my house today and tomorrow the dust back again. They should move the entire place and Comments noted replaced with anything cleaner and nicer. The noise, the dirty pollution from the factories and the dog mess on our street every day. You can't walk on our pavement in the dark because there's too Comments noted. Issues raised have been much dog poo. Small residential homes like ours would better to have there than factories. passed on to be investigated by the Waltham Forest’s Neighbourhoods Team.

143

The noise is always there. Obviously the dust is a major issue because our house is never finished with dust. Residential would be a lot better than what they Comment noted. Environmental issues have there at the moment. have been referred to the Council's Neighbourhoods team for investigation. Please also refer to section 9.1.7.

The breakers yard pollution is too much for my health. Comment noted. Environmental issues have been referred to the Council's Neighbourhoods team for investigation. Please also refer to sections 9.1.7 and 9.9.

I'm fed up with the entire noise and pollution from the factories on Staffa Road. I agree with the plans from the new proposals. Comment noted. Environmental issues have been referred to the Council's Neighbourhoods team for investigation. Please also refer to section 9.1.7.

The big lorries making too much noise and vibrations. And people leaving beer cans on our walls. It's a nuisance. Residential is the preferred option but no Comments noted. Environmental issues council flats and high rises. have been referred to the Council's Neighbourhoods team for investigation. Please also refer to section 9.1.7.

We don't like all this pollution and riffraff. The area looks horrible. The pollution is unbearable. A park or playground for small children to play would be ideal Comments noted and please refer to to replace this. We don't want no tower blocks. sections 9.1-9.1.7 and 9.2 Noise pollution, mechanical noise is the skips being emptied and the metal being crushed, dumping of rubbish, dust pollution, vehicle horning from early in the Comments noted. Issues raised have been morning up until really late at times. Gathering vagrants around the area, urinating on our walls and litter their bottles and cans. The whole area where Staffa passed on to be investigated by the Road meets our road has become sore to the eye. There's loads of rubbish being fly-tipped on Staffa Road. I'd like to see all the industrial sites at the end of Waltham Forest’s Neighbourhoods Team. Staffa road moved to another location and replaced with something like a park or light residential but no high rises or council estates! Please refer to sections 9.1.7 and 9.2.

The dogs are constantly barking all night disturbing us and the house is always dusty. I would like to see a park there to replace the factories. Comment noted. Environmental issues have been referred to the Council's Neighbourhoods team for investigation. The dust, the noise, the cars and a lot of people just hanging around. These are all daily issues we have. A park would be nice, but no tower blocks. Comments noted. Issues raised have been passed on to be investigated by the Waltham Forest’s Neighbourhoods Team. Please refer to sections 9.1.7., 9.2 and 9.4. Every time I come off of Lea Bridge Road to turn on to Burwell Road there's so much rubbish there because of fly-tipping as with Staffa Road. I am in support of Comments noted. Issues raised have been social housing to replace the factories. passed on to be investigated by the Waltham Forest’s Neighbourhoods Team. The pollution from these industrial estates on Staffa Road is too much! I'm fed up with the noise and the riffraff that comes along with it too. It's a dangerous Comments noted. Environmental issues place to be walking at daytime, let alone at night-time. It'd be great to have a few roads opening up through the industrial estates so we can have easier have been referred to the Council's access to the lea Bridge Station. The new plans are a positive step in the right direction. Neighbourhoods team for investigation. Please also refer to sections 9.1.7 and 9.7

144

Conclusion: We hope that you now have a deeper insight into our daily stresses and frustrations with living besides the current state of the Staffa Road Comments noted. Environmental issues industrial estate. We also hope that you will take into consideration our opinions and also involve us a lot more in the decision making processes with the have been referred to the Council's happenings in our immediate local area. We care about our local neighbourhood and this is why we've come together to raise such vital long-held concerns, as Neighbourhoods team for investigation. some of us have done over the last couple of decades. We sincerely hope to hear from you, the council, soon and we really hope that you will actively seek to People who indicated that they wanted to involve us in your future plans for Staffa Road and the surrounding area. We love our local community and we deserve to have a solid say in how to improve be involved in future engagement and left things moving forwards. Lastly, we would like to thank you for your attention and taking the time to listen to our points of view. People love to be heard. contact details on the online consultation And were no different. We hope we've delivered our message loud and clear :) portal, will be notified about further future engagement with local people and communities. Please refer to section 9.1.7 175 No comments made 176 Do not expand the ice rink over Leyton Marsh. The designation of the land should not change, it should be kept as Metropolitan Open Land. Comments noted. Please refer to section 9.11 177 No comments made 178 Ensure that new trees and plants are included in any developments so that wildlife are encouraged to stay and it does not become a bleak concrete set of Comments noted. Please refer to section plazas that can be vandalised, fall apart. Use young architects and start-ups from the area, - see how the Blackhorse Road Studios have been successfully 9.8 developed. Ensure that wildlife is protected and it does not just become a plaza with mainstream retail developments and that the business community there and also the Comments noted. Please refer to sections greenbelt is respected Ensure businesses that are in the premises are not pushed out. Give opportunities for independent businesses to have opportunity to 9.8 and 9.9 develop there not big brands. Having micro-brewery and spaces in the Leyton Business Park that encourage modern light industry, creative and cultural industries and crafts (bit like plans beavertown has for their space in Tottenham) plus modern day businesses including the marble place, car rental etc. is important and low cost long term guaranteed rental options for new business start-ups and artist studios for those pushed out of Hackney, Hackney Wick and Tottenham etc. etc. Would be good if the Greyhound pub was brought back into use The Lea Bridge Road area has huge potential given the number of people who use it but most Comments noted. Please refer to section don't stop there. It could be a really big but sensitive leisure, community and small business development area. 9.10 Ensure that the community facilities are not just empty spaces, and can be used for music, art and shows for all ages. Have a community garden to encourage Comments noted. Please refer to sections wildlife and usage like the City Farm models, or The Curved Garden in Dalston where you have businesses in the garden itself. Having some kind of boathouse 9.4 and 9.5 or venue to reflect the waterway would be good. And not just bars and cafes. What about accommodation, B&B style/alternative hostel for activity holidaymakers and not big hotels? Have a heritage venue to mark all the history of the area so that people would visit to stay, there could be some amazing views from the waterside or across to green belt? Make sure planning includes that developments are low rise, using sustainable/recycled fabrics and not breeze block ugly. As there is not that much housing planned around the Leyton Business Park bit (but a huge 1,200 planned not clear where these are - is this the Argall way warehouse development currently being demolished) would be good to have a bit of the Lea Bridge area as an entertainment area with footfall being increased by better trains and the buses and cyclists would drop more people here if there were things to do in that area.

Ensure access from Lea bridge road is improved i.e. widened and safer (given 2 fatalities seen in last month), as the bike lanes and pedestrian areas do not Comments noted. Please refer to sections work around the bridge at Argall way. If there is to be a school in this area then this access needs vast improvement for child safety. The marina development 9.1-9.1.7 and 9.8 would be a great addition to bring the waterways with walkers, horse trekkers, canal boats, canoes into the area. For the railway area to work more it needs much better entry and access and also that there are many more trains running through it. It is a great start but could be so much more! The arches could become like at Bethnal Green Paradise Row a series of bars and small cafe restaurants attracting those that are no longer able to afford Hackney but still want to stay on the fringe of Hackney.

145

179 Whilst I broadly agree with many aspects of this vision, I have the following comments to make re specific aspects of it: -Section 106 money generated by Comments noted. Please refer to sections developments in Lea Bridge ward to be ring-fenced for projects within the ward, e.g. community facilities - Expand the restoration aspects of this plan 9.6 and 9.8 alongside the 'regeneration' e.g. shop front improvement in keeping with Bakers Arms and Leyton High St regeneration and to include Markhouse corner in planned shop front re-design -More consideration of actual road laydown and use by current residents, e.g. consider the importance of Heybridge Way / former B&Q site and that in the absence of many local residents engaging with the Betfred or church at the Markhouse/Lea Bridge junction (which could be natural centre of the area) and the opening of the new station, the H&H and former B&Q site feels like a centre

More health infrastructure e.g. GP hubs that are planned well, a Walk in Centre -Better transport links, e.g. more trains per hour on train line to Liverpool Comments noted. Please refer to sections Street, bus to Leyton Mills and then on to Stratford -Road layout improvements e.g. improved pedestrian and bicycle crossing at Lea Bridge /Argal Way and 9.1-9.1.7 and 9.5 Markhouse / Lea Bridge -Better access into the marshes, e.g. more crossings over the Lea and Brook that are accessible for bikes & buggies, access under bridge Recognition that pubs are important to the area; H&H, Antelope and the Greyhound -Planning to only be granted if design meets design council standards and Comment noted. Please refer to sections fits with local character e.g. low raise blocks 9.2, 9.8 and 9.10

No building on LVRP land; site opposite ice rink to be fully returned to nature and no building on Waterworks site due to flooding -Keep Leyton. Fc as sports Comments noted. Please refer to section field -Regen/planning departments to support entertainment and social opportunities within the area -Increased early years provision, e.g. nursery or CC 9.11 and 9.12 180 Widening of the Lea Bridge road from the station towards Clapton to accommodate segregated cycle lane in both east and west directions and a new bus lane Comments noted. Please refer to sections going west. Is this is not possible then a new raised cycle bridge should be built to take cyclists travelling east over Orient Way running over the top of Lammas 9.1-9.1.7 and 9.7 Road before re-joining the existing cycle path to the south side of lea bridge road. Coming East the newly finished cycle path towards Lea Valley riding centre could be joined to the new raised cycle way via a cycle slip road before joining over the Lammas Road and then branching off above the Lea Bridge junction and dropping down to join with the cycle lane currently under construction to the north of lea bridge road at the junction with Burwell road. Ambitious but possible. 181 Widening of the Lea Bridge road from the station towards Clapton to accommodate segregated cycle lane in both east and west directions and a new bus lane Comments noted. Please refer to sections going west. Is this is not possible then a new raised cycle bridge should be built to take cyclists travelling east over Orient Way running over the top of Lammas 9.1-9.1.7 and 9.7 Road before re-joining the existing cycle path to the south side of lea bridge road. Coming East the newly finished cycle path towards Lea Valley riding centre could be joined to the new raised cycle way via a cycle slip road before joining over the Lammas Road and then branching off above the Lea Bridge junction and dropping down to join with the cycle lane currently under construction to the north of lea bridge road at the junction with Burwell road. Ambitious but possible. 182 The proposal should consider environment. Comment noted.

183 No comments made 184 You absolutely must not allow building housing, schools, anything on what should be perpetually protected public green land in the Lea Valley. This includes Comments noted. Please refer to section that the Parks Authority must retain and develop the Waterworks Centre and the land around it as a public green space. We were promised the golf course 9.11 back in 2012 after the Olympics. Since then everything has been left to run down. So tragic, so infuriating, now these abominable proposals! Please cut them out of the plans and have this and the Thames Water land retained as and returned to valuable green space.

185 Response from Metropolitan Police included in Stakeholder Responses Please refer to section 3 186 Less than 1200 new flats. This seems like far too many. Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.3

187 No comments made

146

188 Retain the warehouse look (similar to Brooklyn's red hook district which has transformed the area from industrial to trendy in 20 years) Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.8 189 Whilst much of the area would benefit from development/regeneration/investment, one of the things that make it a nice place to live is that there is a village- Comments noted. Please refer to sections like feel to the area. Any development should look to maintain this. Very tall buildings, such as that suggested on the grassy area next to LB station can't be 9.2 and 9.8 good for maintaining the village-like feel of the area. Building on green space absolutely should not be allowed, particularly when there are so many underused plots of land and antisocial-type Comments noted. Please refer to section businesses/warehouses that detract from the quality of life. Surely these should be built on before destroying pleasant green spaces. Walthamstow Marshes 9.11 and the whole Lea Valley area are a little known gem in London. Encourage people to come here and use the green spaces, don't destroy them. 190 No comments made 191 Response from bptw partnership included in 3rd party representations Please refer to section 4 192 Reinstall the Hall Farm Curve so trains can travel from Chingford and Walthamstow to the new Lee Bridge Road Station and Stratford City. Increase public Comments noted. Please refer to section transport frequency and quality and further promote cycling and walking and discourage private car usage. 9.1.5 Only use derelict brownfield sites for housing development. All Metropolitan Open Land space should remain undeveloped and accessible to the public. Comments noted. Please refer to section 9.11 193 No comments made 194 Remove the Ice Centre, since it has reached the end of its useful life, and it is too expensive to replace. Turn the Thames Water site into public open space, Comments noted. Please refer to section removing the hard-standing and all the buildings apart from those that should be retained for their architectural interest. Retain the area around the 9.11 Waterworks Centre as Metropolitan Open Land. If a use cannot be found for the building it should be removed (along with the carpark). 195 The stated vision which recognises the LVR Park as "a major asset and a vital leisure destination with top quality green space facilities" should be honoured. Comments noted. Please refer to section The proposal to develop the Waterworks site, for housing and employment conflicts with this. This site is Metropolitan Open Land, and should be safeguarded 9.11 from development. The LVRPAs stated duty and founding principle is to provide opportunities for recreation, sport, leisure and nature reserves. Large scale housing etc. development on this land, fails to fulfil these duties. Rather proposals should be drawn up for new and enhanced provision of recreation or leisure facilities. I welcome the vision for the Lea Valley Edge that there should be proposals for an enhanced Waterworks Nature Reserve• , but none are presented. The proposed large scale development adjoining the Nature Reserve does not meet this vision. Rather, it will have a significant negative impact on the special habitat and diverse species that the Reserve supports. The Green Spine and pedestrian access to the safeguarded open Waterworks area should be capitalised on and improved. This would create an enhanced green link from the Riding Centre to the improved recreational/leisure facilities on the Waterworks site, and to Jubilee Park and Hackney Marshes. This would complement the parallel north/south pedestrian/cycling link along the west side of the Riding Centre to Hackney Marshes. 196 See above comments - Reference to comments made on Overall Vision 197 I strongly disagree with the councils plan to develop part of the Marshes and local green areas. Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.11 198 The marshes, which I have visited several times a week for many years, are a unique space which provides local people a whole range of leisure opportunities Comments noted. Please refer to section in a historic and beautiful setting. This is what makes Waltham Forest a great place to live in. And the Waterworks Nature Reserve in particular is a little gem 9.11 But no viable nature reserve in the country exists immediately next to high-density housing. Wildlife needs a buffer zone in order to thrive... and the Council has an opportunity to greatly enhance the attraction of its landholdings at minimal cost by minor improvements to the old golf course. If it were possible to acquire the land that has been used by Thames Water over the last few years, then a centre of real national significance could be created. The consultation document is extraordinary in its neglect of environmental factors. Lip service is paid to the importance of a 'green infrastructure' - yet all of its proposals seem likely to result in the laying down of more concrete and tarmac. If the Council ignores local public opinion and attempts to bulldoze its plans through, I anticipate that it will face the most fierce opposition. 147

199 There are enough houses & flats in Lea Bridge area already don't need any more Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.3 200 Lea Bridge road is already highly congested. The addition of the number of new homes proposed along it will further impact the already difficult traffic Comments noted. Please refer to sections situation. The road is often a bottleneck of traffic and can sometimes take an hour to get down it on the bus. The area is very polluted and more trees need to 9.1-9.1.7 and 9.4 be planted. Build fewer homes along the stretch and open up the area to nature - only then will people be encouraged to travel to work/school in different ways. There is growing evidence that people living along busy roads where their properties have such street facing facades, immediately on the road, are having health effects from pollution. The homes built should be stepped away from the road. Making the area less congested and dense in feel which will lead to other travel habits. Working better in the long-run for the regeneration of the area.

The existing Open Metropolitan Land should not be rezoned to facilitate this vision. The co-existence of nature and new homes in the way indicated are totally Comments noted. Please refer to section opposed to actual "nature" and will have a detrimental impact on the health and wellbeing of our city and our children for generations to come. The existing 9.11 wild land is not underutilised, it is a haven not only for an abundance of wildlife that would not co-exist with residential development but as a much needed solace for local people and those from elsewhere. The area currently also provides a wonderful example of nature in the city and people travel to the borough to experience it. It should be an element to be cherished and promoted in any future vision for the area - not removed and rezoned. Additionally building residential properties in this area changes the feel of the rest of the open space around it - spreading the detrimental impact to most of the area - the homes will bring with them more lighting, rubbish, ownership issues, noise etc. Not compatible with nature or the idea of open wild land. This open land is currently a wonderful asset to the area and it is our duty to equality and wellbeing of all the cultures, income brackets and religions for its existence to be at the true heart of any vision for the area. 201 I feel that there is already too much pressure on that area and more development will make this worse. Lea Bridge Road is gridlock at peak hours, and this Comments noted. Please refer to sections development will cause even more traffic. The pollution in this area is very bad and it will reduce the air quality. 9.1.1 – 9.1.7 202 I strongly agree with the vision for Lea Bridge; however as a stakeholder in this area it is clear that the vision was created by people without a good understanding of the businesses and area and leaning towards an idealistic end. There is not too much wrong with this approach; however the decision Support and comments noted. Further makers within the LBWF need to appreciate the financial costs and risks associated with an ideal which is not always aligned to the realities of the business work will be commissioned into viability world. There is no doubt that this area has scope for regeneration and in fact is crying out for it, however the vision needs to address certain facts around and business models for changes to business, employment and land ownership (to mention just a few) to facilitate the vision becoming reality. Flexibility is needed in the approach to enable employment space. Further engagement stakeholders to work together including with the London Borough of Waltham Forest to deliver on the vision. work will also be undertaken with local stakeholders including businesses as part of the new Local Plan and regeneration work. Please refer to section 9.9. 203 To include a bridge from Orient Way into the rear of the two Business Parks in Etloe Road Leyton E10. This will enable the very heavy lorries and other Comments noted. Please refer to section vehicles that use the parks to enter from Orient Way. This will help not only Etloe Road residents but also Simonds and Wiseman Road residents. It will also 9.7 keep the heavy traffic off of Church Road. The area from Orient Way across the Dagenham Brook into the rear of the two business Parks is one of the shortest routes across open land from Orient Way.

204 See our answer to No. 3. All of the industrial element of Rigg Approach should be decanted to sites closer to the A12, away from the chronic congestion of Lea Comments noted. Please see section 9.9. Bridge Road to where enhanced road access is available. The overall vision should see the creation of a new waterside neighbourhood. 205 The stepped bridge over Orient Way needs to be made accessible for all - currently those with buggies/wheelchairs and who can't carry bikes are not able to Comments noted. Please refer to sections use this important and well used link. Examples: My disabled mother uses an electric bike to get around - she is unable to use this bridge. This is my cycling 9.7 route to work - I am fit and healthy but it is difficult to carry my bike over this bridge. I cannot use this bridge to access the Lea Valley when out with my baby, as this is the closest access point for me it means I am less likely to go there and get the benefits of walking in this green space. Important that all main roads have well designed segregated cycling infrastructure and residential areas are welcoming and permeable for walking and cycling and have low traffic speeds and volumes (not rat runs). Design should follow guidance of London Cycle Design Standards (LCDS)

148

Important that links to the green spaces of Lea Valley are enhanced and accessible to all. Comments noted. Please refer to sections 9.4 and 9.7 206 No comments made 207 Open public land for recreational use of residents is continually being chewed away, and needs to be protected for future generations. Housing blocks so close Comments noted. Please refer to section to the nature reserve would cause light and noise pollution very detrimental to our disappearing wildlife. 2. The Waterworks Centre and nature reserve has 9.11 been a safe haven for me and many others to "escape" to over the years, especially disabled or elderly people, unaccompanied women and families with young children. I hope you have enjoyed it too! I've experienced its benefits including the exhibition, guided walks and activities. Also a cup of tea and cake in the beautiful environment of the nature reserve, hearing the birds singing away from the hustle & bustle of life and the noise and fumes of the main road! 3. Much could be done to improve & promote the Waterworks Centre, using imagination and minimal resources. The proposed use of the Ice Rink's refreshment facilities (as an alternative to the Waterworks Centre) is not practical, given its physical distance from the Bird Hide, filter beds and Nature Reserve. It would also mean having to cross busy Lea Bridge Rd. Please bear in mind too, that users of the Ice Rink are a very different type of crowd from the Waterworks Centre/Nature Reserve visitors! 4. Claims that the Waterworks Centre is underused to justify closing it disguises the fact it has been allowed to fall into neglect over recent years. It could be a valuable self-financing community resource in its own right, including the restoration of the popular golf course (we were promised this would happen after London 2012 Olympics!). 5. LVRPA could bring the Waterworks Centre back into use, to meet community needs including those of future residents of 97 Lea Bridge Road tower block development e.g. exercise, health & wellbeing initiatives. 6. The owners of the land LVRPA do not need to sell it in order to expand the Ice Centre - they have millions in reserves and the power to borrow (I'm a qualified former accountant, so understand such things!) 7. The proposed 6-storey blocks would create a hard physical barrier, removing the enjoyment of a view of open marshland for those with the good vision to be able to enjoy it, even me with my limited capacity to a certain degree. This goes completely against a main principle of the Vision: to make Leyton Marshes more visible and accessible. 9. We need to protect the environment and reduce pollution. The construction of proposed buildings would be detrimental to this. 9. Over recent years there has been gradual loss of open space throughout the Lower Lea Valley. Each time locals are told they are only losing a small piece of land. This continuing loss of land has an overall cumulative detrimental effect on the health and wellbeing of residents. 208 Do not permit building on Metropolitan Land such as the LVRPA's Waterworks Centre or Thames Water site in Lea Bridge Road. Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.11 209 Response from Environment Agency included in Stakeholder Responses Comment noted. Please refer to section 3

149

210 I am writing to express my opposition to the proposal within your 'Lea Valley Eastside Vision' document to rezone the land around the Waterworks Centre for Comments noted. Please refer to sections housing and land within the ex-Thames Water Depot site for development. The land around the Waterworks Centre and the ex-Thames Water Depot is 9.11 and 9.12 Metropolitan Open Land. This means that, under the National Planning Policy Framework and the London Plan, it is protected from inappropriate development. Housing is not, and never will be, appropriate development. The area around the Waterworks Centre is used for leisure and recreation and the Lee Valley Regional Park Act does not empower the Lee Valley Regional Park Authority (LVRPA) to sell off land that is used for leisure and recreation. The LVRPA should not have suggested to you, the London Borough of Waltham Forest, that it is able to develop this land for housing. The land around the Waterworks Centre and the Thames Water Depot is floodplain. It is against both the National Planning Policy Framework and the London Plan to build on floodplain. At no point during the consultations about a new ice rink was anyone told that it would be funded by selling off recreational land. If the LVRPA cannot finance the ice rink without selling off green spaces, then it cannot afford a new ice rink. It is unconscionable that the Council, which purports to represent all residents, would support the selling off of land that people without much disposable income can use for leisure and recreation for free in order to build an ice rink that only those with money can use. Claims that the Waterworks is underused and this justifies closing it are disingenuous. It is underused only because those managing it have let it run into the ground over the last few years. There is so much that could be done to make it a vibrant community hub that pays its way. Not least the reinstatement of the very popular golf course (which we were promised would be returned to us after London 2012 anyway). The semi-natural habitats of the marshes of which the land around the Waterworks Centre is part are a haven for wildlife and home to protected species, including kingfishers, bats and dragonflies. They are also important for migrating birds. Housing on the marshes, so close to the nature reserve, would degrade the environment, polluting it with light and noise, and threaten the viability of important wildlife populations. Over the last few years, we have seen the piecemeal erosion of open space throughout the lower Lea Valley. In each case, those proposing a development have told local people that they are only losing a small piece of land. However, the cumulative effects of these developments are beginning to have a serious impact on the quality of life and the health and well-being of residents. If the LVRPA - the very organisation tasked with protecting some of our most precious green spaces is encouraged by this plan to try and sell off even one acre of Metropolitan Open Land, then it is no exaggeration to say that the spectre of our marshes disappearing under high-rise tower blocks comes one step closer. Ill finish with a statement made by the LVRPA itself in 2011, when it opposed the housing development at Essex Wharf, just across the road from both the Thames Water Depot and the Waterworks Centre: ˜We think it will have a major adverse impact on a large area of the Park. Residential development does not fit within the remit of the Park. I couldn't have said it better myself. Please amend 'Lea Valley Eastside Vision' to ensure that Metropolitan Open Land within the London Borough of Waltham Forest is protected.

I would also add that I regularly travel up and down Lea Bridge Road, traffic is already at a standstill for many hours of the day, trains at Lea Bridge and Clapton Comments noted. Please refer to sections are already full at peak times so where are these people supposed to fit into travel?! We have already got high levels of pollution in the air; all these extra cars 9.1.1 - 9.1.7 and people will add to the daily struggle, pollution and commute with no consideration taken around the travel in the area. 211 No comments made

150

212 The land around the Waterworks Centre and the ex-Thames Water Depot is Metropolitan Open Land. This means that, under the National Planning Policy Comments noted. Please refer to sections Framework and the London Plan, it is protected from inappropriate development. Housing is not, and never will be, appropriate development. The area 9.11 and 9.12 around the Waterworks Centre is used for leisure and recreation and the Lee Valley Regional Park Act does not empower the Lee Valley Regional Park Authority (LVRPA) to sell off land that is used for leisure and recreation. The LVRPA should not have suggested to you, the London Borough of Waltham Forest, that it is able to develop this land for housing. The land around the Waterworks Centre and the Thames Water Depot is floodplain. It is against both the National Planning Policy Framework and the London Plan to build on floodplain. At no point during the consultations about a new ice rink was anyone told that it would be funded by selling off recreational land. If the LVRPA cannot finance the ice rink without selling off green spaces, then it cannot afford a new ice rink. It is unconscionable that the Council, which purports to represent all residents, would support the selling off of land that people without much disposable income can use for leisure and recreation for free in order to build an ice rink that only those with money can use. Claims that the Waterworks is underused and this justifies closing it are disingenuous. It is underused only because those managing it have let it run into the ground over the last few years. There is so much that could be done to make it a vibrant community hub that pays its way. Not least the reinstatement of the very popular golf course (which we were promised would be returned to us after London 2012 anyway). My son and I walk in the space regularly. The semi-natural habitats of the marshes of which the land around the Waterworks Centre is part are a haven for wildlife and home to protected species, including kingfishers, bats and dragonflies. They are also important for migrating birds. Housing on the marshes, so close to the nature reserve, would degrade the environment, polluting it with light and noise, and threaten the viability of important wildlife populations. Over the last few years, we have seen the piecemeal erosion of open space throughout the lower Lea Valley. In each case, those proposing a development have told local people that they are only losing a small piece of land. However, the cumulative effects of these developments are beginning to have a serious impact on the quality of life and the health and well-being of residents. If the LVRPA - the very organisation tasked with protecting some of our most precious green spaces is encouraged by this plan to try and sell off even one acre of Metropolitan Open Land, then it is no exaggeration to say that the spectre of our marshes disappearing under high-rise tower blocks comes one step closer. Ill finish with a statement made by the LVRPA itself in 2011, when it opposed the housing development at Essex Wharf, just across the road from both the Thames Water Depot and the Waterworks Centre: ˜We think it will have a major adverse impact on a large area of the Park. Residential development does not fit within the remit of the Park. I couldn't have said it better myself. Please amend 'Lea Valley Eastside Vision' to ensure that Metropolitan Open Land within the London Borough of Waltham Forest is protected.

213 Too much and inappropriate development along the Lea Bridget Road. Breaking up of the green feel to the road. You have already made a mess of the mini Comments noted. Please refer to sections Holland work along the Lea Bridge Road. Too much paving, trees cut down, etc. Your vision for the area looks like more of the same. 9.1-9.1.7 and 9.11 214 Lea Bridge Road is unable to deal with the traffic levels. I have had to stop cycling to work along it as the constant long traffic jams make the air un breathable. Comments noted. Please refer to sections From my house to Clapton pond, the air pollution from the traffic is so bad it gives me a serious asthma attack every time I travel along it. 9.1.1- 9.1.7

151

215 I would like to express my opposition to the proposal within your 'Lea Valley Eastside Vision' document to rezone the land around the Waterworks Centre for Comments noted. Please refer to sections housing and land within the ex-Thames Water Depot site for development. The land around the Waterworks Centre and the ex-Thames Water Depot is 9.11 and 9.12 Metropolitan Open Land. This means that, under the National Planning Policy Framework and the London Plan, it is protected from inappropriate development. Housing is not, and never will be, appropriate development. The area around the Waterworks Centre is used for leisure and recreation and the Lee Valley Regional Park Act does not empower the Lee Valley Regional Park Authority (LVRPA) to sell off land that is used for leisure and recreation. The LVRPA should not have suggested to you, the London Borough of Waltham Forest, that it is able to develop this land for housing. The land around the Waterworks Centre and the Thames Water Depot is floodplain. It is against both the National Planning Policy Framework and the London Plan to build on floodplain. At no point during the consultations about a new ice rink was anyone told that it would be funded by selling off recreational land. If the LVRPA cannot finance the ice rink without selling off green spaces, then it cannot afford a new ice rink. It is unconscionable that the Council, which purports to represent all residents, would support the selling off of land that people without much disposable income can use for leisure and recreation for free in order to build an ice rink that only those with money can use. Claims that the Waterworks is underused and this justifies closing it are disingenuous. It is underused only because those managing it have let it run into the ground over the last few years. There is so much that could be done to make it a vibrant community hub that pays its way. Not least the reinstatement of the very popular golf course (which we were promised would be returned to us after London 2012 anyway). The semi-natural habitats of the marshes of which the land around the Waterworks Centre is part are a haven for wildlife and home to protected species, including kingfishers, bats and dragonflies. They are also important for migrating birds. Housing on the marshes, so close to the nature reserve, would degrade the environment, polluting it with light and noise, and threaten the viability of important wildlife populations. Over the last few years, we have seen the piecemeal erosion of open space throughout the lower Lea Valley. In each case, those proposing a development have told local people that they are only losing a small piece of land. However, the cumulative effects of these developments are beginning to have a serious impact on the quality of life and the health and well-being of residents. If the LVRPA - the very organisation tasked with protecting some of our most precious green spaces is encouraged by this plan to try and sell off even one acre of Metropolitan Open Land, then it is no exaggeration to say that the spectre of our marshes disappearing under high-rise tower blocks comes one step closer. Ill finish with a statement made by the LVRPA itself in 2011, when it opposed the housing development at Essex Wharf, just across the road from both the Thames Water Depot and the Waterworks Centre: ˜We think it will have a major adverse impact on a large area of the Park. Residential development does not fit within the remit of the Park. I couldn't have said it better myself. Please amend 'Lea Valley Eastside Vision' to ensure that Metropolitan Open Land within the London Borough of Waltham Forest is protected. 216 The so-called 'vision' ought to respect current green open space and aim to enhance it. The name 'Lee Valley Regional Park' should be self-explanatory as to its Comments noted. Please refer to section purpose. Preservation of existing green open space is no drain on budgets. The Park Authority built the 'Waterworks Centre' as a visitor centre for the Essex 9.11 Filter Beds, a wildlife nature reserve and for a long established 'pitch'n'putt' course. Sadly the 'vision' of those running the Lee Valley Regional Park has been helicopter bases, gravel extraction works, aircraft hangar like indoor sports facilities and property development, incompetently executed if permitted. For the immediate surroundings of the Waterworks Centre the Park Authority has had an over-large car park, inadequate signage and close to the Lea Bridge Road ugliness. The proposed residential developments, presumably high rise as approved for 97 Lea Bridge Road, will degrade the environment of the Essex Filter Beds with noise, reflected sunlight in daytime, artificial light in night time and perhaps other problems. The perception, and perhaps the reality, will be a blocking off of pedestrian, jogger, runner and cyclist access to the remaining green open space, particularly the area in which pitch'n'putt course fittings are rusting into the ground. Once the precedent has been set for property development on Metropolitan Open Space there will be no barrier to further encroachments. The Lee Valley Regional Park Authority will have been given a 'land bank' on which to draw whenever its finances need topping up, or its senior post holders wish to fund further entrepreneurial ventures. The alternative I would infinitely prefer is a low key, modest cost, gradual enhancement of the amenity and ecological value of this section of the Lea Valley. The newly reopened Lea Bridge Station, due to have an increased frequency of trains, is very close to the Waterworks Centre site and can bring new users of the open space, and new opportunities for walking, running and cycling routes combining use of public transport. The site is a manageable walk for many people to the Queen Elizabeth II Olympic Park, on which much money has been spent. It is preferable from a community point of view to make better use of past expenditure than to undermine the advantages it starts to bring to the people of Waltham Forest.

217 No comments made 218 Leave the marshes alone Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.11 152

219 I like the idea of making space available for small businesses that are being squeezed out of Hackney because it is too expensive but I think there is a danger of Comments noted. Please refer to sections Waltham Forest going the same way with this proposal. Lea Bridge road and Leyton are working class areas and there should not be an attempt to ponsify the 9.3 and 9.9 area into some sort of pseudo middle class village. I am in favour of the road being improved with nicer and more attractive shop fronts but not at the price of the current businesses being squeezed out. We need somewhere to live and shop and so do our children and if we go the way that Hackney has gone there will be nowhere for us to go.

220 There does not appear to be a convincing case for developing Metropolitan Open Land on the Thames water site. Schools would be better locater near the Comments noted. Please refer to section catchment area on the east side of The Valley. If there is any development on this site it should be for public leisure use and run by the lea valley park. 9.11 Remaining land should be returned to the valley landscape. This area has a special importance as the original route of the black path passes across the middle of this site and there seems to be a strong case that this historic route across The Valley is reinstated.

The improved connections across the flood relief channel on the east side is welcomed, though the benefit of these connections would be significantly Comments noted. Please refer to section improved by a north south path on the east side of the flood relief channel. Parts of this route exist but others would require opening up of the maintenance 9.7 access which appears possible with a simple barrier (hedge or fence) to the water. A north south route on the east side would give Walthamstow a similar level of accessibility to The Valley as that enjoyed by the west side of The Valley through the use of the tow path on the . The level of development proposed justify a greater investment in improved routes across The Valley. This should include reinstatement of the Historic route of the Black Path, a route which forms a direct connection from Walthamstow to . Columbia Road and .

221 No comments made 222 No comments made 223 LEA BRIDGE To what extent to you agree with Vision. What are your reasons. I agree with the area proposed to develop green space, however this should be Comments noted. Please refer to section offset by reclaim brown field elsewhere. 9.11 The scale of developments at Lea Bridge Junction seem high. Activate frontage / edge to Eurostar Terminus along Orient Way Comments noted. Please refer to section 9.2 224 I am in favour of a new health centre which is desperately needed (with evening opening) and a bus route along Orient Way to Leyton Mills (this should Comments noted. Please refer to sections continue to Stratford), and a cycle hub in Jubilee Park. I would also like trains to Liverpool Street from Lea Bridge Station. 9.1-9.1.7 and 9.5

I would like to see improvements to shop fronts along Lea Bridge Road. Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.6 It is important that housing developments also offer community spaces and contain affordable / social housing. Comment noted. Please refer to sections 9.3 and 9.5

I am opposed to building on the marsh land around the Waterworks Centre. Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.11 225 Response from London Parks and Gardens Trust (LPGT) included in 3rd Party Representations Please refer to section 4 226 Stop plans to build on / rezone Metropolitan Open land i.e. the land around the Waterworks Centre and land within the ex-Thames Water Depot. Focus Comments noted. Please refer to section development on true brown-field land. Ensure all development on brownfield land minimises environmental impact, or improves the environment as part of 9.11 the conditions of planning permission. e.g. green roofs, solar panels, recycling grey water, minimising tarmac, impermeable surfaces to ensure excess rain water can drain away etc. etc.

153

227 Yes - regarding the proposed "new bridge" access points to Walthamstow Marshes, I would much rather see a new bridge created further north - from the Low Comments noted. Please refer to section Hall playing fields. It seems to me that this would much better connect the existing green spaces of St James Park with the wider Lea Valley. The existing "Black 9.7 Path" runs through the industrial estate and this is quite an intimidating route for single people - leading to a particularly lonely and isolated spot on the marshes (you are sandwiched between the flood relief channel and the riding centre). A more northerly access point from the playing fields would be much more pleasant and usable by more people. I know it has been proposed in the past - please revisit this idea again!!

228 I support the borough in opposing schools opposite the Ice Rink because Comments noted. These are detailed a. Too far from the vast majority of the increase in population points, the majority of which would have b. Lea Bridge Road is a dangerous road with a bad accident record and always traffic jammed. The school would increase road traffic. to be taken into account in consideration c. The road pollution levels would increase affecting the young students for life. of any planning applications for schools d. The enlarged ice rink should be built on the school site. So saving finance of providing a temporary rink while the original ice rink is replaced. and an ice rink should they arise. Please e. The original rink site could be returned to open land to the benefit of all especially the new housing development by the side of the original rink. refer to sections 9.1.5 and 9.11 f. Is it necessary to lose the Waterworks building which is near the increase in population and also the old pitch & put site. Which has not been returned since used for the Olympics and it was assumed it would be returned as other sites, i.e. Drapers Field Leyton etc. g. This development should include the hall farm curve which would reduce vehicle movement in the area and the borough.

Church Road ID Comments Council Response 1 No comments made 2 No comments made 3 No comments made 4 Paint some houses like the High Road, open shops and little cafes/restaurants Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.6 5 Keep Ive Farm athletics track from neglect and miss use, too many illegal dog walkers and squatters ruining the area Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.5 6 No comments made 7 No comments made 8 No comments made 9 There is real potential for a lovely area here. I fully support the restoration of period buildings such as the disused pub, and would love to see a new Comments noted. Please refer to sections community of independent cafes and shops spring up alongside a more open access route to the park. It would be great to see the aesthetic of the area 9.6 and 9.10 improve and I would certainly support local independent businesses - especially cafes and pubs - in this area.

154

10 Better cycling and walking infrastructure. Discourage car ownership Comments noted. Please refer to sections 9.1.3 and 9.1.6 11 This area desperately needs redevelopment. The Markhouse Road end particularly. The Savoy Cinema on the corner would be a great feature if it wasn't Comments noted. Please refer to section covered in gaudy, cheap advertisements for African churches. 9.6

12 Any improvements to outdoor areas are very welcome here, especially Dagenham Brook. Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.4 13 No comments made 14 As a daily cyclist and walker, I would benefit from these changes. These changes would also positively impact the pollution in the area Support noted 15 No comments made 16 I use this area less, so am less able to discuss the strengths of this part of the consultation. It is still a way from the station, so it is important that decent retail Comment noted. Please refer to section and open space is offered. 9.6 Opening another station would be beneficial, as this would encourage travel on a less pollution inducing mode of transport on the already congested roads. Comment noted. Please refer to sections 9.1.6-9.1.7 Re-opening the Greyhound would be great, but help should be given to the Hare and Hounds pub on Lea Bridge Road, which has a wonderful atmosphere as a Comments noted. Please refer to section hub for local residents, but could benefit from some help in refurbishment. 9.10 17 No opinion as I don't use this area Comment noted 18 No comments made 19 No comments made 20 ANY housing provided should be at least 50% Social housing with rents that local people can actually afford i.e. at Council rents, the units should be Council Comments noted. Please refer to section owned and managed. Any units for sale should be at a price local people can afford to buy. 9.3 Local infrastructure will need to be upgraded, roads, schools, transport, health facilities. Comments noted. Please refer to section 9.5 21 I think making the Jubilee Park a gateway is important and as cyclist I am often struck by how frustrating it is to reach places such as Homerton by bike. This is Comments noted. Please refer to sections simply because crossing the rail line is such a division. You have to effectively cycle via the Clapton roundabout or take a terrible footbridge over the tracks. If 9.1.3 and 9.7 the vision is to make the area more appealing to live in without being reliant on cars connections with such areas need to be considered. 22 As long as transport (buses) are improved. Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.1.3 23 No comments made 24 The intersection of Church Road and Lea Bridge Road has so much potential- the old theatre building and the historical clock tower are really nice, it would be Comment noted. Please refer to sections so great if that area was restored. 9.1.3, 9.6 and 9.8 25 No comments made 26 Markhouse corner could be awesome. Not sure how you're going to change the bug Church and/or Toucan Tools into something better, but I wish you the best Comments noted. Please refer to sections of luck! Also, some of the industrial units on Church Road would make awesome cafes/bars. 9.1.3, 9.6 and 9.8

155

Lastly, I'm very excited about the prospect of The Antelope reopening. But please could careful consideration be given to who opens it? A bad pub is, to be Comments noted. Please refer to section honest, probably worse than no pub! 9.10 27 No comments made 28 No comments made 29 This sounds like a good way to make sure that as the area develops it makes the most of its location and what's already there. If a cafe is provided at Ive Farm Comments noted. Please refer to 9.5 it should be positioned to maximise footfall & visibility and be sufficiently sized to be vibrant and commercially successful. I really like the idea of this but it's really important that businesses like this have the footfall to be able to thrive.

30 No comments made 31 No comments made 32 No comments made 33 No issues Comment noted 34 No comments made 35 No comments made 36 No comments made 37 Leave the Leyton Marches and the Green belt alone! There are plenty of ugly industrial estates to build over, not the green spaces! Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.11 38 No comments made 39 No comments made 40 No comments made 41 We don't want building on our marshes. The marshes are protected land. Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.11 42 I need to see the plans. What I would not like to see is local businesses being moved so that so called nice areas are planted etc. And such like areas. Business Comments noted. Please refer to section areas should stay business areas. 9.9 43 Again, ridiculous. Comment noted 44 No comments made 45 Create some empty space that can be a blank canvas to make the new development feel natural and of the local place. This has to be actively built into very Comments noted. Please refer to sections early plans. This could be empty shops / communal spaces / start-up social enterprise space etc.… 9.8 and 9.9 46 No comments made 47 Making Jubilee Park more visible and accessible is key - it's a great hidden asset Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.4 48 No comments made

156

49 No comments made 50 No comments made 51 Keep green space and make it more accessible. Once again the area around Leyton Midland Road is not included in this vision and will be left sticking out as an Comment noted. Please refer to sections area in need of investment. 9.4 and 9.6

52 No comments made 53 See comments in 5 above - improve what is there instead of extending into the green areas Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.11 54 Response from Thames21 included in 3rd Party Representations Comment noted. Please refer to section 4 55 Too much building in Church Lane, will cause congestion near the three schools there. Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.1.1 56 No comments made 57 No comments made 58 We need green areas around Hackney and in general around London. All the marshes are protected areas, important for humans and animals. Don't build and Comments noted. Please refer to section destroy another area in London. 9.11 59 No comments made 60 See previous comments - Reference to comments made to Overall Vision and Lea Bridge section 61 No comments made 62 Since the old cinema/bingo hall on the corner was turned into a 'church', why wasn't any provision made for the extra traffic (same as Baker's Arms) so it's Comments noted. Please refer to sections basically gridlock. I think that whole Markhouse junction needs improving. 9.1.3 Further up Church Road, the plans show a potential reopening of The Antelope pub. Not sure why as the reason it closed was a lack of trade so unless you've Comments noted. Please refer to section arranged a twice daily CAMRA convention... 9.10 63 No comments made 64 Tidy up the businesses at the north end. Allow some more shops including bakery, cafes, and nicer newsagents. Comments noted. Please refer to section 9.6 Ensure cars don't park in the cycle lanes. Extend the cycle lanes. Comments noted. Please refer to section 9.1.3 65 Leave it as it is Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.3 66 No comments made 67 The 2 local primary schools over the years have had major problems with a highly mobile school population which has presented them with real challenges to Comments noted. Please refer to sections meet achievement targets. I can't see how the plans will significantly reduce mobility issues. The old business industrial area would be a good place for 9.2, 9.5 and 9.9 additional housing but not too dense that it becomes crammed with cars and litter Avoid the ubiquitous LBWF cheap yellow brick you use on so many schemes which clearly signifies social housing and is not attractive. Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.8

157

A few pubs and cafe would be good. Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.10 Do not introduce mini Holland which has been a disaster Walthamstow and I'm a keen cyclist! Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.1.3 68 No comments made 69 No comments made 70 No comments made 71 To restore the theatre on the corner of Lea Bridge and Church Road Comment noted. Aspiration within the Vision to refurbish key buildings to support local parade and facilities with enhancement and modernisation of employment areas. 72 No comments made 73 No comments made 74 Limit high rise buildings Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.2 75 No comments made 76 No comments made 77 It would be fantastic if some of the outdoor play areas near Ive Farm could be lit in the winter afternoons. In the winter it’s hard to do stuff in the afternoons Comments noted. Please refer to sections outdoors because its dark and scary so if any solutions can be taken from Scandinavia so we can encourage more outdoor play even in the winter month this 9.4 and 9.5 would be very positive any opportunity for a permanent small outdoor theatre/performance space to get local musicians, choirs, actors artists etc. to perform weekly. I there any potential for some kind of weekly market, food or crafts?

78 More greenery. Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.4 79 No comments made 80 The Church Road area is in dire need of an uplift. Potters Church, chicken shops, corner shops, sleazy slot machine outfits and Transylvanian bars all serve to Comments noted. Issues raised have been make this area feel like a waste land that you want to get the hell out of. We spend no time here as there is nothing to do for us, which is very sad. The area passed on to be investigated by the feels more like an industrial park than a residential area at times and this could easily be remedied. There are far too many betting shops! (Please help close Waltham Forest’s Neighbourhoods Team. the betting shop on corner of Lea Bridge Rd and Markhouse Rd - it is so unsafe to walk past at night with drunken men lingering outside and leering at Please refer to sections 9.6, 9.8 and 9.10 women). Also please stop fly tippers dump furniture at the end of Palamos Rd and Church St - not only is it disgusting it's a hazard as it's right in the pavement and would stop anyone getting about from the two roads if they had access needs. There are two old warehouse buildings (one is a sofa refurbishment company) are beautiful - if they are on the plans for change it would be great if they could be turned into restaurants or shop / studios / community places or flats. The shops on Lea Bridge Rd are obscure and uninviting to say the least and will not attract young professionals - i.e.. money in the area. Please can this area get its own identity - with more places to eat, drink and where people can be social - that is what's needed. At the moment this area is just a means to get somewhere good - please make it somewhere good! Jubilee park and the surrounding green areas are so beautiful. They need to be cleaned up and opened up and made into more of a feature for the area - Comments noted. Please refer to sections attracting more wildlife and a community spirit. The bridge that leads from Hackney marshes to Jubilee park needs to be rebuilt for bikes to cross and it needs 9.7 and 9.4 lighting at night. This is currently extremely unsafe, which is a shame as it's a great way to access Church Rd and currently doesn't feel very mini Holland at all!

158

Plans do look fantastic for this area and looks like it will open up the green areas and work with existing historic buildings that should be given the attention Issues raised have been passed on to be they deserve. Another suggestion would be to open up the small gardens off Church Rd such as Cambrian gardens and the little park behind the beautiful investigated by the Waltham Forest’s library. The more green spaces we can have the better. They are currently used by drunken tramps and are not family friendly. New gates and a more open Neighbourhoods Team. look and feel with kids play areas will really help. The carwash, industrial buildings on Church Rd are a total eye sore and they have so much land behind them. The plans for changing this look great. The school and Antelope pub opposite on Church Road need attention! This needs to be a pub again! We need a good pub and coffee shops in the area, like Comments noted. Please refer to section Francis Rd. 9.10 The Gloucester Rd bus stop should be in front of the cycle lane not behind it - this is so dangerous. This should also be changed on Markhouse Rd too. I have Comment noted seen so many people getting off buses hit by bicycles and vice versa. 81 I do not agree with the council's decision several years ago to allow a church to take over the historic old cinema on the corner of Lea Bridge and Church Comments noted. Planning permission Roads. I believe the decision was made with no consideration of the impact this would have on the local community (the majority of which do not use the has already been granted for the use of church). Such a shame that a historic building is now effectively side-lined; a waste of an opportunity to put such a building at the centre of the Lea Bridge / this building as a church. Markhouse / Leyton community. If there is any way of addressing this and integrating this venue back into the general community that would be fantastic.

82 No comments made 83 No comments made 84 No comments made 85 No comments made 86 No comments made 87 No comments made 88 No comments made 89 No comments made 90 No comments made 91 Building such high density housing has never been successful in LBWF, who have spent decades knocking down the former high rise housing. Why/How are Comments noted. Please refer to sections these developments going to be better and not a waste of money? 9.2 and 9.8 92 I like all the plans for Church Road. This is a road, area and community that is much in need of investment. I am pleased to see that in the plans it is not just Support noted residential developments but also, retail and industrial investment and that consideration is being made for ensuring that plans also include jobs and employment opportunities. I also like the idea of opening up Dagenham Brook and investing in the sports field at Ive Farm, these are important community assists that have been neglected. Again any reservations I have about the plans are around fears that any development will swamp existing areas and communities and must be done in harmony with what already exists. Also all building must be sustainable and built for low energy living and working.

93 No Comment noted 94 LBWF should lead on the regeneration of these sites as far as possible. Using CPO's if necessary. Comments noted 95 No comments made 96 Great! Currently just a residential road with too few pedestrian crossings and too many speeding cars. Comments noted

159

97 No comments made 98 No comments made 99 No comments made 100 Opening up Dagenham Brook and links to Leyton Jubilee Park would be welcome. Planting more trees in this area would be welcome. Improvements to Support noted. Please refer to sections Markhouse Corner are welcome, but, as for Lea Bridge, any new retail should not be of the type currently along Lea Bridge Road. 9.1-9.1.7, 9.4 and 9.6 101 More traffic calming, more greenery Comment noted. Please refer to sections 9.1.3, 9.1.6 and 9.8 102 No comments made 103 Please do whatever it takes to get the Antelope open! Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.10 104 No comments made 105 No comments made 106 No comments made 107 No comments made 108 No comments made 109 No comments made 110 No comments made 111 As mentioned on the above Villiers Close buildings are OUT OF DATE. Our house conditions are very poor. Concern noted. Your comments have been forwarded to London & Quadrant Housing Association with a suggestion that local residents are updated on any estate investment or improvements plans. We have less transport connection for example we reside at Leyton but there is no direct bus to our local hospital. No accesses to cash point. Comments noted. Please refer to sections 9.1.4and 9.7 112 No comments made 113 Potters House could move elsewhere allowing the cinema building to be used in different ways. Support places in the industrial units like Signature Brew that Comment noted. Please refer to sections could start to make the estates more social. 9.5 and 9.9 114 See above comments - Reference to comments made on Overall Vision 115 I generally agree with the Church Road proposals. Support noted 116 I also think this development has great potential and personally I have no objections outside the general ones laid out in section 1. Support and comments noted 117 No comments made 118 No comments made

160

119 I think it’s a really good idea to improve the area around Church Road. I feel that there is an opportunity to really give the area a new lease of life. Sadly the Support noted. Please refer to sections improvements so far with the mini Holland scheme feel as though they have been a bit half-hearted and poorly thought out. The cycle paths aren't really fit for 9.1.1 and 9.1.3 purpose as the sections are so short before they push you back onto the road that most cyclists don't use them. I feel that that was a squandered opportunity and I do hope that this won’t be more of the same.. a big problem is that the roads are already too busy. Capworth Street is already a big problem, with daily jams and road rage on the street, it is dangerous and uncivilised, and it should be made a one way or better still a cul de sac. Lea Bridge road is a very busy road, but I fear that there is nothing that can be some about that as it is a major artery.

Opening up access t the marshes is very important, and I think a new foot bridge over the railway from Orient Way at the bottom of Jubilee Park for pushchair Comments noted. Please refer to sections and cycle access is essential in or der to make the most of the asset that is the green spaces we have. 9.4 and 9.7 I think it is possible to get the balance right between development and retaining the character of the area. Church road areas that are being rezoned of Comments noted. Please refer to sections housing must include open area with new opportunities for business and cafes and ideally pedestrian only areas. I think places for cafes to have tables outside, 9.5 and 9.8 and not on a major road, maybe for kids to play etc.... with all these new house will come increased strain on the e services in the area - will need to build new schools and health services, this is absolutely essential and should be factored into any plan. For every development there should be an allocated number of school places and health provision that will be made alongside.

120 No encroachment of green spaces should be made in any redevelopment/rezoning Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.11 121 The focus here is on maintaining and sustaining well established businesses and not forcing them out to make way for residential properties Comments noted. Please refer to section 9.9 122 More restaurants and coffee shops and less newsagents. I live in Leyton and I go to Stratford and hackney all the time as I cannot find nice enough places to go Comments noted. Please refer to sections at the weekend in Leyton. There are a lot of shops offering the same thing but not many offering nice places to eat or shop. I think there is massive room for 9.6 and 9.10 improvement, especially given how nice both Stratford and hackney are in comparison to this area. 123 More restaurants and coffee shops and less newsagents. There are a lot of shops offering the same thing but not many offering nice places to eat or shop. I Comments noted. Please refer to sections think there is massive room for improvement, especially given how nice both Stratford and hackney are in comparison to this area. I live in Leyton and I go to 9.6 and 9.10 Stratford and hackney all the time as I cannot find nice enough places to go at the weekend in Leyton. 124 No comments made 125 No comments made 126 No comments made

161

127 I am writing to express my vociferous opposition to the proposal within your 'Lea Valley Eastside Vision' document to rezone the land around the Waterworks Comments noted. Please refer to section Centre for housing and land within the ex-Thames Water Depot site for development. The area is an important space for wildlife - it is home to a variety of 9.11 snakes, birds and insects, and a place where local residents and Londoners from further afield can explore nature. Housing on the marshes, so close to the nature reserve, would degrade the environment, polluting it with light and noise, and threaten the viability of important wildlife populations. Over the last few years, we have seen the piecemeal erosion of open space throughout the lower Lea Valley. In each case, those proposing a development have told local people that they are only losing a small piece of land. However, the cumulative effects of these developments has drastically altered the composition of the area, and is beginning to have a serious impact on the quality of life and the health and well-being of residents. Mental health and access to nature are inextricably intertwined. If the LVRPA - the very organisation tasked with protecting some of our most precious green spaces is encouraged by this plan to try and sell off even one acre of Metropolitan Open Land, then it is no exaggeration to say that the spectre of our marshes disappearing under high-rise tower blocks comes one step closer. Waltham Forest residents will lose much of what makes the Borough more liveable, in exchange for increased concrete, pollution and a decreased quality of life. Ill finish with a statement made by the LVRPA itself in 2011, when it opposed the housing development at Essex Wharf, just across the road from both the Thames Water Depot and the Waterworks Centre: We think it will have a major adverse impact on a large area of the Park. Residential development does not fit within the remit of the Park. I couldn't have said it better myself. Please amend 'Lea Valley Eastside Vision' to ensure that Metropolitan Open Land within the London Borough of Waltham Forest is protected. 128 No comments made 129 No comments made 130 No comments made 131 No comments made 132 See above - Reference to comments made on Overall Vision and Lea Bridge section 133 No comments made

162

134 Dear Sir or Madam, I am writing to express my opposition to the proposal within your 'Lea Valley Eastside Vision' document to rezone the land around the Comments noted. Please refer to sections Waterworks Centre for housing and land within the ex-Thames Water Depot site for development. The land around the Waterworks Centre and the ex-Thames 9.11 and 9.12 Water Depot is Metropolitan Open Land. This means that, under the National Planning Policy Framework and the London Plan, it is protected from inappropriate development. Housing is not, and never will be, appropriate development. The area around the Waterworks Centre is used for leisure and recreation and the Lee Valley Regional Park Act does not empower the Lee Valley Regional Park Authority (LVRPA) to sell off land that is used for leisure and recreation. The LVRPA should not have suggested to you, the London Borough of Waltham Forest, that it is able to develop this land for housing. The land around the Waterworks Centre and the Thames Water Depot is floodplain. It is against both the National Planning Policy Framework and the London Plan to build on floodplain. At no point during the consultations about a new ice rink was anyone told that it would be funded by selling off recreational land. If the LVRPA cannot finance the ice rink without selling off green spaces, then it cannot afford a new ice rink. It is unconscionable that the Council, which purports to represent all residents, would support the selling off of land that people without much disposable income can use for leisure and recreation for free in order to build an ice rink that only those with money can use. Claims that the Waterworks is underused and this justifies closing it are disingenuous. It is underused only because those managing it have let it run into the ground over the last few years. There is so much that could be done to make it a vibrant community hub that pays its way. Not least the reinstatement of the very popular golf course (which we were promised would be returned to us after London 2012 anyway). The semi-natural habitats of the marshes of which the land around the Waterworks Centre is part are a haven for wildlife and home to protected species, including kingfishers, bats and dragonflies. They are also important for migrating birds. Housing on the marshes, so close to the nature reserve, would degrade the environment, polluting it with light and noise, and threaten the viability of important wildlife populations. Over the last few years, we have seen the piecemeal erosion of open space throughout the lower Lea Valley. In each case, those proposing a development have told local people that they are only losing a small piece of land. However, the cumulative effects of these developments are beginning to have a serious impact on the quality of life and the health and well- being of residents. If the LVRPA - the very organisation tasked with protecting some of our most precious green spaces is encouraged by this plan to try and sell off even one acre of Metropolitan Open Land, then it is no exaggeration to say that the spectre of our marshes disappearing under high-rise tower blocks comes one step closer. Ill finish with a statement made by the LVRPA itself in 2011, when it opposed the housing development at Essex Wharf, just across the road from both the Thames Water Depot and the Waterworks Centre: We think it will have a major adverse impact on a large area of the Park. Residential development does not fit within the remit of the Park. I couldn't have said it better myself. Please amend 'Lea Valley Eastside Vision' to ensure that Metropolitan Open Land within the London Borough of Waltham Forest is protected. Regards

135 Community and facilities for children must factory heavily the Church Street development. As above - I'm not 100% against any form of development but Comments noted. Please refer to sections please, employ some talented architects and designers that can create a practical, almost simple and maintainable landscape in coordination of how already 9.5 and 9.8 looks The proposed cycle lane is very much appreciated and it is extremely practical and no-doubt will be used a great deal. Support noted 136 Community and facilities for children must factory heavily the Church Street development. as above - I'm not 100% against any form of development but Comments noted. Please refer to sections please, employ some talented architects and designers that can create a practical, almost simple and maintainable landscape in coordination of how already 9.5 and 9.8 looks The proposed cycle lane is very much appreciated and it is extremely practical and no-doubt will be used a great deal. Support noted

163

137 I am concerned about the proposed residential development adjoining the Queen Elizabeth Jubilee Park, which will inevitably infringe on the area. My Comments noted. Any development will property also backs on to Dagenham Brook. I cannot see the sense of the "vision's" proposal to "open up" and develop on land adjoining the Brook. This would be the subject of individual planning place existing resident's properties at risk. Further development in the flood plain should not be encouraged. applications and need to comply with existing urban design and security policies. Wording has been included in the revised Vision reflecting the flood zone status of certain areas and that a key objective for any new development will be to reduce flood risk and include any necessary flood mitigation measures. Please refer to section 9.12 Finally, whilst the "vision" mentions Markhouse Corner, and puts forward a proposal to improve one of the blocks adjoining it, it makes no mention of the real Comments noted. Please refer to sections problem, which is the dangerous crossing at the Markhouse Road / Lea Bridge Road intersection, which makes no provision for pedestrians. When is this issue 9.1-9.1.7 going to be addressed? Why is there no "green man" at this junction which is heavily used by pedestrians. How about diverting some of the money from the wasteful "mini-Holland "scheme on this suggestion, which would actually benefit local residents?

138 Hi I am writing to express my opposition to the proposal within your 'Lea Valley Eastside Vision' document to rezone the land around the Waterworks Centre Comments noted. Please refer to sections for housing and land within the ex-Thames Water Depot site for development. The land around the Waterworks Centre and the ex-Thames Water Depot is 9.11 and 9.12 Metropolitan Open Land. This means that, under the National Planning Policy Framework and the London Plan, it is protected from inappropriate development. Housing is not, and never will be, appropriate development. The area around the Waterworks Centre is used for leisure and recreation and the Lee Valley Regional Park Act does not empower the Lee Valley Regional Park Authority (LVRPA) to sell off land that is used for leisure and recreation. The LVRPA should not have suggested to you, the London Borough of Waltham Forest, that it is able to develop this land for housing. The land around the Waterworks Centre and the Thames Water Depot is floodplain. It is against both the National Planning Policy Framework and the London Plan to build on floodplain. At no point during the consultations about a new ice rink was anyone told that it would be funded by selling off recreational land. If the LVRPA cannot finance the ice rink without selling off green spaces, then it cannot afford a new ice rink. It is unconscionable that the Council, which purports to represent all residents, would support the selling off of land that people without much disposable income can use for leisure and recreation for free in order to build an ice rink that only those with money can use. Claims that the Waterworks is underused and this justifies closing it are disingenuous. It is underused only because those managing it have let it run into the ground over the last few years. There is so much that could be done to make it a vibrant community hub that pays its way. Not least the reinstatement of the very popular golf course (which we were promised would be returned to us after London 2012 anyway). The semi-natural habitats of the marshes of which the land around the Waterworks Centre is part are a haven for wildlife and home to protected species, including kingfishers, bats and dragonflies. They are also important for migrating birds. Housing on the marshes, so close to the nature reserve, would degrade the environment, polluting it with light and noise, and threaten the viability of important wildlife populations. Over the last few years, we have seen the piecemeal erosion of open space throughout the lower Lea Valley. In each case, those proposing a development have told local people that they are only losing a small piece of land. However, the cumulative effects of these developments are beginning to have a serious impact on the quality of life and the health and well- being of residents. If the LVRPA - the very organisation tasked with protecting some of our most precious green spaces is encouraged by this plan to try and sell off even one acre of Metropolitan Open Land, then it is no exaggeration to say that the spectre of our marshes disappearing under high-rise tower blocks comes one step closer. Ill finish with a statement made by the LVRPA itself in 2011, when it opposed the housing development at Essex Wharf, just across the road from both the Thames Water Depot and the Waterworks Centre: ˜We think it will have a major adverse impact on a large area of the Park. Residential development does not fit within the remit of the Park. I couldn't have said it better myself. Please amend 'Lea Valley Eastside Vision' to ensure that Metropolitan Open Land within the London Borough of Waltham Forest is protected. I look forward to hearing from you

139 No comments made 140 No comments made

164

141 No comments made 142 No comments made 143 No comments made 144 No comments made 145 No comments made 146 No comments made 147 No comments made 148 No comments made 149 No comments made 150 No comments made 151 No comments made 152 No comments made 153 No comments made 154 Response from Leyton Orient Trust is considered under 3rd party representations Please refer to section 4 155 No comments made 156 Is there anything more than high rise apartment blocks planned? I support a low level housing approach with walking and cycling prioritised. Comments noted. Please refer to sections 9.1.3 and 9.2 I would like more focus on how people live locally, with small shops, restaurants and bars encouraged. I applaud the ambition to re-open pubs but really, will Comments noted. Please refer to sections they happen in reality when developers get involved? Some of the new Blackhorse Road developments are mini-slums of the future with nothing to do there 9.6 and 9.10 and nowhere to meet anyone. 157 An example of council "improvements" is the mess they have made doing the cycle lanes. Loss of numerous parking spaces, traffic lights post in the middle of Comments noted. Please refer to sections the cycle lanes so they still have to go in the road or on the pavement. The road is so narrow you get total blockage if a bus or a dust cart stops bearing in mind 9.1.1 and 9.1.3 there is a fire station in the road which isn't ideal. Will double yellow lines and no loading at any time signs along there how do any of these get a delivery or a doctor’s visit or carer.

158 No comments made 159 No comments made 160 No comments made 161 No comments made

165

162 Improvements to existing retail units need to be addressed in line with improvements such as the ones at bakers arms. There is a lot of anti-social behaviour in Comments noted. Issues raised have been this area (especially near the betting shop) and crossings are unsafe. passed on to be investigated by the Waltham Forest’s Neighbourhoods Team. Please refer to section 9.6

163 No comments made 164 Response from Strutt and Parker included 3rd Party Representations Please refer to section 4 165 No comments made 166 As above - Reference to comments made on Overall Vision 167 No comments made 168 The land around the Waterworks Centre and the Thames Water Depot is floodplain. It is against both the National Planning Policy Framework and the London Comments noted. Please refer to sections Plan to build on floodplain. At no point during the consultations about a new ice rink was anyone told that it would be funded by selling off recreational land. If 9.11 and 9.12 the LVRPA cannot finance the ice rink without selling off green spaces, then it cannot afford a new ice rink. It is unconscionable that the Council, which purports to represent all residents, would support the selling off of land that people without much disposable income can use for leisure and recreation for free in order to build an ice rink that only those with money can use. Claims that the Waterworks is underused and this justifies closing it are disingenuous. It is underused only because those managing it have let it run into the ground over the last few years. There is so much that could be done to make it a vibrant community hub that pays its way. Not least the reinstatement of the very popular golf course (which we were promised would be returned to us after London 2012 anyway). The semi-natural habitats of the marshes of which the land around the Waterworks Centre is part are a haven for wildlife and home to protected species, including kingfishers, bats and dragonflies. They are also important for migrating birds. Housing on the marshes, so close to the nature reserve, would degrade the environment, polluting it with light and noise, and threaten the viability of important wildlife populations. Over the last few years, we have seen the piecemeal erosion of open space throughout the lower Lea Valley. In each case, those proposing a development have told local people that they are only losing a small piece of land. However, the cumulative effects of these developments are beginning to have a serious impact on the quality of life and the health and well-being of residents. If the LVRPA - the very organisation tasked with protecting some of our most precious green spaces is encouraged by this plan to try and sell off even one acre of Metropolitan Open Land, then it is no exaggeration to say that the spectre of our marshes disappearing under high-rise tower blocks comes one step closer. Ill finish with a statement made by the LVRPA itself in 2011, when it opposed the housing development at Essex Wharf, just across the road from both the Thames Water Depot and the Waterworks Centre: ˜We think it will have a major adverse impact on a large area of the Park. Residential development does not fit within the remit of the Park. I couldn't have said it better myself. 169 No comments made 170 No comments made 171 No comments made 172 No comments made 173 Reduce the number of new homes/intensity of new buildings. Comment noted. Please refer to sections 9.2 and 9.3

174 No comments made 175 No comments made 176 No comments made

166

177 No comments made 178 Really think that there needs to be a big improvement in the interconnection into Walthamstow Markhouse Road side with Church Road so that this would Comments noted. Please refer to section make the Jubilee park and Church Road area better used. 9.7 The park has some really great children and sports attractions and with the additional vision for this area it would be really amazing space. It would be good if Comments noted. Improvements to the they could keep the gasometers in this area, if this is to be turned into housing that they should be protected. There could be more festivals and events hosted accessibility of the Lee Valley Regional in this park and more could be made of the cafe in the park. There needs to be more allotments that have been lost due to the housing being built now in Park are part of the Vision. Other Leyton Central. If there is a city farm here or in Lea bridge station area, which teaches children and communities about nature, sustainability, how to grow food comments have been noted and would etc. Any outdoor facilities need to be inviting but vandal proof. Another bridge over the Eurostar which is better that the current one would be nice but I think have to be taken forward as specific there needs to be more made of the grassland where the golf putting range used to be - better connect to riding school, have outdoor bike area there or projects. Please refer to sections 9.2, 9.4 wildlife centre? and 9.8 It is impossible to find Ive Farm and to access it. Also how to access this from Orient Way to encourage more walkers, cyclists, runners etc. to use this route Comments noted. New signposting and and to better connect it as a way to the Olympic park area too. Access and safety for those using outdoor area of Ive Farm is to be a big issue for its use surely wayfinding will be introduced so that Ive and we are not sure how this could be improved given existing housing around it? Farm can be found easily. Please refer also to sections 9.5 and 9.7

Also the area of Leyton Orient's training ground behind the Hare and Hounds needs to be protected so that it is potentially both for housing but also as Comments noted. Also please refer to another park to interlink to the Dagenham Brook, bring people to the Hare and Hounds as a great pub and eating and live venue. sections 9.4 and 9.10

What about the B&Q site, why is this not to be turned into the school and health centre that is so needed for this area, given it has great access and is pretty Aldi have purchased the ex-B&Q site on easy to build on already??? Lea Bridge Road and the Planning Application to refurbish the building as a supermarket was approved in March 2017. 179 I don't know/use this area of the borough so feel that I am unable to provide very specific comments for consideration, but would like to offer some broad Comments noted. Please refer to sections principles for the vision for these areas instead: -Section 106 money generated by developments in Lea Bridge ward to be ring-fenced for projects within this 9.5 and 9.8 area -More health infrastructure e.g. GP hubs that are planned well, a Walk in Centre -Planning to only be granted if design meets design council standards and fits with local character e.g. low raise blocks -Regen/planning departments to support entertainment and social opportunities within the area - Expand the restoration aspects of this plan alongside the 'regeneration' 180 Be careful to maintain local employment and businesses. Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.9 181 Be careful to maintain local employment and businesses. Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.9 182 Lack of practical considerations such as space for new and existing residents, parking space. Comments noted. Please refer to section 9.1.2 183 No comments made 184 No comments made 185 Response from Metropolitan Police included in Stakeholders Responses Please refer to section 3 186 No comments made 187 No comments made

167

188 No comments made 189 Whilst much of the area would benefit from development/regeneration/investment, one of the things that make it a nice place to live is that there is a village- Comments noted. Please refer to sections like feel to the area. Any development should look to maintain this. Very tall buildings, such as that suggested on the grassy area next to LB station can't be 9.2 and 9.8 good for maintaining the village-like feel of the area. Building on green space absolutely should not be allowed, particularly when there are so many underused plots of land and antisocial-type Comments noted. Please refer to section businesses/warehouses that detract from the quality of life. Surely these should be built on before destroying pleasant green spaces. Walthamstow Marshes 9.11 and the whole Lea Valley area are a little known gem in London. Encourage people to come here and use the green spaces, don't destroy them. 190 No comments made 191 No comments made 192 No comments made 193 No comments made 194 No development should be permitted at Ive Farm that will attract motor cars. If more sporting facilities are required in the neighbourhood, they can be Comments noted. There will be very provided at the Score Centre. However, I am quite in favour of the plan to improve cycle links in this area. limited parking spaces at Ive Farm. Please refer to section 9.5 195 I cannot comment on proposals for parts of the Borough that I do not know. My concerns are with the proposals for the Lea Bridge area. Comments noted 196 As a Hackney resident I think it would be inappropriate for me to comment. Comment noted 197 As above - Reference to comments made on Overall Vision 198 No comments made 199 There are enough houses & flats in Church Road area already don't need any more Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.3 200 There needs to be something built into the vision that helps support the existing businesses not get priced out of the area with this wave of new properties. Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.9 This rent cap should also apply to the new homes - otherwise it will raise the price of social rents in the surrounding area. I feel that these things need to be Comments noted. Please refer to section sensitively thought about and embedded into the heart of the scheme. 9.3 Marsh Lane is a congested road during school drop offs and this area needs to be more thought through in relation to density. Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.1.1 There are also some existing buildings that perhaps could be maintained. Again I feel that any homes built here should be stepped away from the street to Comments noted. Please refer to sections allow for more trees to be planted to balance out increasing the density of the area. It would feel less dense if things like this are considered - there is also a 9.2 and 9.8 wonderful amount of open sky that can be experienced in this area - something that adds to the arrival to the park and the marsh and that should be maintained.

201 No comments made 202 I do not have the same interests as for the Lea Bridge element or the same local knowledge; however it is clear that any improvement to this area will benefit Comments noted the wider community.

168

203 To include a bridge from Orient Way into the rear of the two Business Parks in Etloe Road Leyton E10. This will enable the very heavy lorries and other vehicles Comments noted. Please refer to section that use the parks to enter from Orient Way. This will help not only Etloe Road residents but also Simonds and Wiseman Road residents. It will also keep the 9.7 heavy traffic off of Church Road. The area from Orient Way across the Dagenham Brook into the rear of the two business Parks is one of the shortest routes across open land from Orient Way.

204 No comments made 205 The stepped bridge over Orient Way needs to be made accessible for all - currently those with buggies/wheelchairs and who can't carry bikes are not able to Comments noted. Please refer to section use this important and well used link. Examples: My disabled mother uses an electric bike to get around - she is unable to use this bridge. This is my cycling 9.7 route to work - I am fit and healthy but it is difficult to carry my bike over this bridge. I cannot use this bridge to access the Lea Valley when out with my baby, as this is the closest access point for me it means I am less likely to go there and get the benefits of walking in this green space.

Would like to see the Ive Farm area incorporated to the Jubilee Park as a green space with free facilities open to all. I would much prefer open free to use park Comments noted. Please refer to section facilities than gated pay to use facilities. I would like to see a 400m running track incorporated into the Jubilee Park - this should not be a gated pay to use 9.5 facility, but simple and open to all. A good example is the cinder track in Victoria Park, which also has simple trim trail equipment inside the track (for chin ups etc.) - this has constant use from members of the public, and local groups and clubs also use it for coached sessions. It would greatly enhance the facilities in the Jubilee Park to have a similar facility available to our residents.

Walking and cycling links between Ruckholt Road/Olympic Park and Marsh Lane need to be provided as part of new developments here. Orient way and Oliver Comments noted. Please refer to sections road are not pleasant to walk along - noisy, high traffic, poor air quality. Currently when walking between the Olympic park and marsh lane you have to walk 9.1.1 – 9.1.7 and 9.7 along an unpleasant section of Orient way between Ruckholt road junction and where the off road paths start. Walking and cycling links between Ruckholt Road/Olympic Park and Marsh Lane need to be provided as part of new developments here. Orient way and Oliver road are not pleasant to walk along - noisy, high traffic, poor air quality. Currently when walking between the Olympic park and marsh lane you have to walk along an unpleasant section of Orient way between Ruckholt road junction and where the off road paths start.

206 No comments made 207 No comments made 208 No comments made 209 Response from Environment Agency included in Stakeholders Responses Please refer to section 3 210 No comments made 211 No comments made 212 No comments made 213 No comments made 214 The area needs serious investment to deal with the numbers of people using the area, more development will cause more traffic and more pollution and I Comments noted. Please refer to sections can't deal with how bad it is at the moment 9.1.1 - 9.1.7 and section 9.5 215 No comments made 216 No comments made 217 No comments made

169

218 The industrial sites should remain in some form as this is what traditionally makes a city thrive - living intertwined with working - if you make all just living Comment noted. Please refer to section space you kill the energy of a place - look at the recent developments near Millfields - these are new super dense and are dead areas to walk through 9.9 219 No comments made 220 The proposals do not seem to justify the loss of Metropolitan Open Land proposed. Proposals should respect the current protection of open space which will Comments noted. Please refer to section be in more demand from more homes and more people. 9.11 221 No comments made 222 Welcome further environmental improvements and enhanced connectivity with the Lea Valley. Comments noted. Please refer to sections 9.4 and 9.7 223 Enhance connections through housing to Jubilee Park and Orient Way Extend scope to connection with Leyton High Road Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.7 224 No comments made 225 Response from London Parks and Gardens Trust (LPGT) included in 3rd Party Representations Please refer to section 4 226 No comments made 227 No comments made 228 Re-using the old running track area at the Ive Farm for sports seems sensible. But is it necessary to lose the Score Centre which received the 2005 best new Comments noted. Unfortunately, building design award. It appears to be well used day and evenings and is opposite the Orient Football site/club making the area a sports hub. although only 12 years old, the Score Centre design has not stood the test of time well. In particular the main sports hall is difficult and very expensive to keep warm in the colder months, and too hot in the summer. There will be new state of the art indoor leisure facilities built on the Score Centre site to replace the current ones and all the current users will be supported to use the new facilities. Please refer to section 9.5

Leyton ID Comments Council Response 1 No comments made 2 Definitely good to improve the area opposite the station, these plans look great Support noted 170

3 No comments made 4 No comments made 5 Avoid the over development Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.2 6 Leyton Mill needs a shopping mall complex and cinema and more high street shops. Leyton needs high street banks and more ATM machines. Comments noted. Please refer to 9.6 7 A bridge to access the Olympic park from Leyton Mills would be a good addition and anything to improve cycling and green spaces in the area Comment noted. Please refer to sections 9.4 and 9.7

8 No comments made 9 I fully support further gentrification of the High Road, with improvements the shop fronts extending further up the road and again, I would love to see the Support noted. Please refer to sections introduction of more cafes, bars and independent shops (instead of the grotty take-always and cheap toilet/tyre shops that line the road). I also support the 9.6 and 9.10 redevelopment of Leyton Mills area to make it more inviting from the High Street and to offer an increased range of shops. I hugely value the Fitness First gym (although it is well overdue a refurb and an upgrade in line with its city centre clubs), as well as the big B&Q and Asda. With such a large local population, we do need these big supermarkets and we do need quality access roads and parking.

Mass housing and retail developments should be carefully considered so as not to add additional pressure to already bursting public transport, healthcare and Comment noted. Please refer to sports (adult sports!) facilities, and I would like to see the character buildings restored and made into features. sections 9.1.1 - 9.1.7, 9.2, 9.5 and 9.8 I fully support any improvements to the station and the development of another station. The Central Line will not cope with the growing population alone, and Support noted. Please refer to section increasing the routes into Stratford and Tottenham Hale's key transport interchanges will be a sensible longer-term solution, as long as the frequency of trains is 9.1.5 increased to match demand. Overall, for Leyton, I love the gardens, food markets, independent cafes and I hate the awful traffic, hate the poor public transport links and cycle routes in the middle of Leyton/Walthamstow, and hate the areas that are void of personality and full of horrid take-always and warehouse-like places.

Any efforts to create village-like community centres, to provide higher quality gyms/yoga facilities, to support local independent businesses and to address the Comments noted. Please refer to traffic/transport issues will be welcomed. section 9.5 10 Less cars in the area. Comment noted. Please refer to sections 9.1.1 - 9.1.7 11 Station and bridge needs a major upgrade, as does access to A12. The traffic from Orient Way to Leyton Mills is terrible. Comments noted. Please refer to sections 9.1-9.1.7 12 I like the idea of a town square south of Coronation Gardens but the development must be sensitive, low-rise good quality architecture. Please nothing like 'The Comments noted. Please refer to Scene' in Walthamstow. The height and density of development on the Bywaters site is too dense and too tall. If Leyton Mills is developed in a similar way it could sections 9.2 and 9.8 overwhelm the peaceful residential atmosphere most of Leyton has.

171

The A12 dissects the area, causes horrible amounts of pollution and is a barrier to communities either side of it. This plan is ambitious: now is the time to address Comments noted. The A12 is known to the A12 - can it be covered over with a park? Or could a section of it be covered near Leyton station and integrated with the new town centre? No amount of nice be a major existing barrier in the local new buildings and trees will make the area around Leyton station and Leyton Mills pleasant without addressing the A12. area. There was an ambition from the previous mayoral administration to explore decking over the A12 however this was found to be very expensive. The Council will continue to work with TfL to try to mitigate the impact and pollution of the A12 on the local area. Please also refer to 9.1.7 13 At present, uncertain as to how the new developments will affect me as I live virtually opposite Leyton Tube Station which, from the plans, appears to be in the There are no proposals to redevelop development zone. Will our houses (Hughenden Terrace) remain? If they do, will the new development enhance our property or detract from it by being in the Hughenden Terrace. The Leyton Mills shadow of high rise buildings site is the closest potential development site on the other side of the A12. No detailed plans for height are available at this stage. Please refer to section 9.2 14 As a daily cyclist and walker, I would benefit from these changes. These changes would also positively impact the pollution in the area Support noted 15 I recently moved to Leyton and the thing that struck me the most was the small size and limitations of the Leyton Underground Station. It is already really small Comments noted. Please refer to for the amount of people who leaves here and if you are planning to bring 2900 new homes; you must fix the station first. It really needs more gates, a new section 9.1.5 staircase, more ticket machines, etc. You mention a potential new Ruckholt Road station, that would be a very welcomed addition but you are quite short on details. What lines are you planning to Comments noted. Please refer to have in this station? There is very little or no mention of bus routes improvements. There should be more connections to Stratford, maybe a direct shuttle, or a sections 9.1.4 and 9.1.5 express service with fewer stops? There is very little or no mention of cycling routes. Maybe you could extend the super high ways CS2 to Leyton? 16 Again, this is an area I use less, as it is quite a long walk from Markhouse corner where I live, and walking is by far my preferred method of transport, but to be Comments noted. Please refer to able to walk a green route through to Leyton, and to offer a more diverse choice of shopping, would definitely make me use the area more. Again. I think that it's sections 9.4 and 9.6 hugely important that any development to the area is carefully approved to focus on environment rather than profit. 17 No opinion as I don't use this area Comments noted 18 No comments made 19 No comments made 20 ANY housing provided should be at least 50% Social housing with rents that local people can actually afford i.e. at Council rents, the units should be Council Comments noted. Please refer to owned and managed. Any units for sale should be at a price local people can afford to buy, section 9.3 Local infrastructure will need to be upgraded, roads, schools, transport, health facilities. Comments noted. Please refer to section 9.5 21 Ideas that bring odd developments such as Leyton Mills into feeling like they might be in some way related to the residential look of the wider area are welcome. Comments noted 22 No comments made 23 No comments made

172

24 It would be great if there was a skate park, like Victoria park in hackney has. Leyton jubilee park is so baron, it would be a perfect spot for it. Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.5 25 No comments made 26 No comments made 27 All the side roads of church rd. goldsmith e10 grange ok e10 are getting. Very busy these rod need to be cut off or its need permits Capworth street e10 steer Comments noted. Please refer to Capworth st e10 also to busy no flow of traffic too dangerous ppl drive too fast down these residential area !!! sections 9.1.1 – 9.1.7 28 No comments made 29 I like the idea of rethinking the station and the Leyton Mills site - currently these both fail to support the High-Street due to their remoteness. I think the station Comments noted. The Council will main entrance should shift to the west side of the road to provide a direct link in to Leyton Mills (bridging over the A12) and a much wider pavement to take continue to work with TfL to try to people on to the high road. Currently the A12 forms a break in the high street and a narrow bottleneck in the area which not good for pedestrians, especially mitigate the impact and pollution of the carrying shopping, with buggies and (I would imagine) really poor if you're in a wheelchair or have reduced mobility. The only good thing about the A12 is that A12 on the local area and improve because there are no buildings there's a really nice view in to central London if you're tall and can see over the big fence! There should be some kind of viewing access to the existing Leyton point for everyone :-) I don't know if there's much you can do about reducing the impact of the A12 on residents - in particular noise and air pollution. I don't underground station. Please also refer know how effective screening/absorbing materials would be. But if there's the opportunity to work these in to developments that might be good. to sections 9.1.1 - 9.1.7 30 No comments made 31 No comments made 32 No comments made 33 Extend the shopfront improvements to the shops on Leyton High Road from Calderon Road to Downsell road. Comments noted. Please refer to section 9.6 The new station proposal at Ruckholt road is absolutely key to this proposal. Leyton tube itself is already heavily overcrowded in the mornings and the proposed Comments noted. Please refer to additional housing will only add to this. section 9.1.5 Is there any scope for additional secondary schooling in the plans. The area is getting a number of new primary schools but the secondary provision remains Comments noted. Please refer to small. section 9.5 Lea Valley Eastside is reminiscent of the American Eastside / Westside naming convention which does not fit well with the current occupants or the history of the Comments noted. The Vision document area and has gang related connotations. Other options you might consider - Lea Valley Central, Lea Valley East Bank, Lea Valley East, Leyton Village, Leyton will be called the “Lea Bridge and Town. Leyton Vision” rather than Lea Valley Eastside to reflect responses to the public consultation. 34 The sooner that Leyton Mills is developed the better, but please also include public space/public squares as much as possible (think Granary Square kings x). In Comments noted. Please refer to addition think about how Leyton high street can be intensified, but in a way that is respectful of the existing architecture - can more development on top floors or sections 9.6 and 9.8 the back of them be achieved. As well as capping over the railway for development, is there an opportunity for road widening to avoid the bus/car bottleneck that happens at this point. And Comments noted. Please refer to how can the high street as a road for cars and bikes be improved. sections 9.1-9.1.7 35 No comments made 36 No comments made

173

37 Stop the building of more and more high rises! This is an area of 2 story houses, building 16 story buildings that overlook people's gardens and block light for rich Comments noted. Please refer to buy to leave investors is not needed. section 9.2 The area where building could happen is over the A12. There are strips of land either side and it could be built over from the B&Q all the way to Leytonstone. Comments noted. The A12 is known to Allowing for Leyton Station to be doubled in size, reduction in noise pollution and use land that is not used at the moment, not Leyton Marches, the allotments be a major existing barrier in the local and the sporting facilities for the young of the community. area. There was an ambition from the previous mayoral administration to explore decking over the A12 however this was found to be very expensive. The Council will continue to work with TfL to try to mitigate the impact and pollution of the A12 on the local area. Please refer to section 9.1.5 38 No comments made 39 You cannot build on the Marshes it must be protected Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.11 40 No comments made 41 We don't want building on our marshes. The marshes are protected land. Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.11 42 Stop building unaffordable multi flatted development and in particular unaffordable high rise flats. Comments noted. Please refer to sections 9.2 and 9.3

43 The comments above cover all regeneration that is not 100% social, will only benefit corporations and those already on the housing ladder or with capital to Comments noted. Please refer to invest, and essentially just service the complete homogenisation and stripping of character in these areas due to wholesale, unimaginative architecture and no sections 9.3 and 9.8 consideration for quality of life in the area. 44 No comments made 45 Create some empty space that can be a blank canvas to make the new development feel natural and of the local place. This has to be actively built into very early Comments noted. Please refer to plans. This could be empty shops / communal spaces / start-up social enterprise space etc.… sections 9.8 and section 9.9 46 I feel if this can be done in a way which does not compromise space, green areas, trees or the current community feel than I will support it. Comments noted. Please refer to sections 9.4 and 9.11 47 Coronation Gardens are a huge asset; the smelly rubbish tips are a problem (presumably they would go?) Comments noted. The existing Bywaters site which is the waste transfer centre already has outline planning permission for a mixed use employment, primary school and residential redevelopment. As part of this redevelopment the waste transfer station use will be moved to Bow. The local civic amenity recycling site adjacent will remain as part of the scheme. 174

48 No comments made 49 No comments made 50 No comments made 51 Leyton Mills is currently horrible and does not relate to the High Road, new development must bring the two together and get rid of the windy corridors that are Comments noted. Please refer to rubbish strewn and homes to rough sleepers. Leyton Station desperately needs wider space outside. New housing should not be so high as to overshadow sections 9.2, 9.6 and 9.8 existing terraced streets but be sympathetic to the current architectural styles. Having said that though some innovative architecture in the borough would be appreciated as new developments tend to be very formulaic and boring adding nothing to the townscape. Leyton High Road benefited from investment in shop fronts around the Olympics but there has been little maintenance and enforcement since then so many have no kept to their original style and are covered in stickers - on-going management is essential to the success of any of these regeneration schemes, without this any improvements are going to be a waste of money. 52 No comments made 53 See 5 above - improve what is there instead of extending out. The borough is fast becoming overcrowded and claustrophobic, helping the greedy and not the Comments noted needy. 54 Response from Thames 21 included in 3rd Party Representations Please refer to section 4 55 I feel as though Leyton has had a lot of investment, the shops are still quite low quality. Comments noted. Please refer to section 9.6 56 No comments made 57 No comments made 58 We need green areas around Hackney and in general around London. All the marshes are protected areas, important for humans and animals. Don't build and Comments noted. Please refer to destroy another area in London. section 9.11 59 No comments made 60 See previous comments - Reference to comments made to Overall Vision and Lea Bridge section 61 I have been living in the area for 12 years and within last 2-3years the public transport became extremely overcrowded, especially the central line. Comments noted. Please refer to section 9.1.5 I am very happy to see council plan for the regeneration program, with GPs (I am unable to book appointment with mine within a week), shops and other Comments noted. Please refer to businesses. section 9.5 However, I wonder how will those extra thousands of people get to and from work? The opinion of overcrowding on central line is not only mine but shared by Comments noted. Please refer to many others and last year became so infamous when it comes to delays, crowd and offences that it was named the worst line. How would building the 4500 new sections 9.1-9.1.7 houses help with overcrowding? Unfortunately the problem is not restricted to the tube but spills onto the roads too. Anyone to tries to take Leyton- Walthamstow bus in peak time will have to spend a long time in the traffic. I will not even mention river crossing that is painfully slow. Shouldn't the council first make sure that there are sufficient transport links before building more houses especially in the Leyton area? Unless you want to cause even more misery to people who live here already.

175

62 Lose (or modify) the CPZs! It seems as though the council is at war with every motorist who lives or wants to visit the area. Parking is at a premium. I bring your Comments noted. Please refer to attention to Jesse Road E10. This road has 19 dwellings and not all of them have cars yet the road is off limits all day to anyone without a permit even though it's sections 9.1.2 and 9.1.3 usually completely empty! I myself will have to get rid of my car simply because the cost of a permit is unaffordable and I can't afford another car. A bus route linking Leyton Mills to Lea Bridge station would be a good idea and sort out the junction of Orient Way and Lea Bridge ( a regular accident blackspot badly designed in the first place).

63 No comments made 64 Reduce traffic. Reduce pollution. Comments noted. Please refer to sections 9.1- 9.1.7 Clean up Lea bridge road. Ban bookies and chicken shops. Encourage small producers into the area. Offer lower rates to artists to use some of the space. Comments noted. Please refer to sections 9.6 and 9.9

Ensure the housing is complementary to existing. Plant more greenery, trees, flowers etc. in some of the grubbier areas. Discourage people from standing on the Comments noted. Please refer to streets and drinking. section 9.8 65 Leave it as it is Comment noted 66 No comments made 67 Lull down Leyton Mills and start again Comment noted Do not introduce mini Holland which has been a disaster Walthamstow and I'm a keen cyclist! Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.1.3 68 If the cycle "improvements" are anything to go by, someone is making some very dangerous mistakes. I have had more than a few near misses BECAUSE of the Comments noted. Please refer to new cycle lanes and junctions that have been put in place. The whole plan needs a massive rethink. section 9.1.3 69 It would be good if better links to the Olympic Park were incorporated. Comment noted. Please refer to sections 9.4 and 9.7 I think it is important that the architecture is of high quality and well-designed. Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.8 The scheme for the new railway station is very good, as the Central line is currently very crowded, and more transport will help the population to grow smoothly. Comments noted. Please refer to section 9.1.5 70 No comments made 71 No comments made 72 No comments made 73 No comments made 74 Limit high rise buildings. Witness the poor building in Stratford and around Ilford creating building canyons. Comments noted. Please refer to section 9.2 75 No comments made 76 No comments made

176

77 Great to see all existing Victoria era buildings made good and the new architecture blend in the more green trees and spaces the better Comments noted. Please refer to section 9.8 78 Something to help with the pollution and smell of car fumes. The first impression from Leyton station isn't nice, the road, the motor way, the lack of greenery, it Support noted. Please refer to sections feels like a grubby part of a motorway service station at the moment - too many cars! Compared to Walthamstow and Leytonstow, Leyton is massively neglected, 9.1.1 - 9.1.7 this plan is welcome and long overdue. 79 As the shop fronts from Leyton station to the where the road merges close to Vicarage Road, improvements had already been made to the shop fronts in Comments noted. Please refer to preparation for the Olympics, I would strongly suggest that further shop front improvements should be made from the cricket ground up to the Bakers Arms. sections 9.6 and 9.8 Under Section 106 funding and as a part of the contractual agree for Developers, they should contribute towards the costs of improving the shop fronts and refurbish the pavements (which are in desperate need of improving, due to health and safety of the state of the paving) along this stretch of the road,(from the Cricket ground, along Leyton High Road to the Bakers Arms), to support with the community and social infrastructure of the area. 80 Make Leyton as good as Walthamstow - seek out artists to help with the rejuvenation, have links to Hitchcock or other renowned famous people who used to live Comments noted. Please refer to here - give it some heritage! section 9.10 Re-open the Antelope pub and make it a good pub. Comments noted. Please refer to section 9.10 Have signage to historical places, areas and wildlife. Make people have a bit of love for this area. Comments noted. Please refer to section 9.8 Get the right kinds of shops on the Lea Bridge Rd (no weird sex bars, no industrial estates and less betting shops and tatty corner and bric a brac shops). Comments noted. Please refer to Everything looks and feels shabby, but it shouldn't but it's surrounded by a lovely park and some pretty great houses and historical buildings section 9.6 81 No comments made 82 No comments made 83 No comments made 84 No comments made 85 Some concerns - the height of the blocks proposed for Leyton Mills site, which is not in keeping with the area. Will there be enough green space around all the Comments noted. Please refer to new flats on Leyton Mills (and presumably, the children that will move into them)? sections 9.2, 9.4 and 9.8

The loss of shops (Asda, B&Q, Poundland) when Leyton Mills is redeveloped. There are no other large supermarkets and home stores in walking distance for local Comments noted. Please refer to residents. Will good, cheap local shops be retained? (NOT Tesco express and other small, overpriced shops!) section 9.6

Regarding the proposed Ruckholt Road station, there is already a lot of noise from trains in the area. Will the new station lead to increased noise? If there are any Comments noted. A new station at opportunities to reduce noise (and pollution) from the trains, Central line, and main roads, they should be taken. Ruckholt Road would not increase the number of trains on the line as just the existing services would stop there. In 2019 new rolling stock is due to be introduced on the Lea Valley line which is expected to be quieter than the existing 35 year old rolling stock. Please also refer to section 9.1.5

177

86 No comments made 87 No comments made 88 No comments made 89 No comments made 90 No comments made 91 Such high developments to west of the High Road/Oliver Road will leave the area of Coronation Gardens in afternoon shadow during the winter months. What Comments noted. A sun and daylight are the results of the sun and shadow analysis of this development and it tall blocks? assessment is required on all major developments and therefore will be part of the planning process. Please refer to section 9.2

92 Again I feel the plans for Leyton look interesting. I particularly like the plans for Leyton Mills, currently a poor car dominated, warehouse, out of town style Support and comments noted. Please shopping area. Leyton Mills need to be made more attractive for humans and not cars. Also I like the idea of opening a station at Ruckholt Road as this will help also refer to section 9.1.7 people make more sustainable transport decisions. I also like the idea of enhancing Leyton Station by widening the bridge over the A12. Again all development must be sustainable and built for low energy living and working.

93 Get rid of all the kebab and fast food shops and encourage small business start-ups, Employ me to assist in this enlightening vision to encourage structural Comments noted. Please refer to demand overlapping enterprise. section 9.6 94 Additional development facing Orient Way to join Church Road improvements to Ruckholt Road would be welcome. Estate regen along Church Road would be Support and comments noted. welcome too. Opportunities to develop alongside Orient Way south of Lea Bridge Road are limited due to the Eurostar Depot use (aspiration to improve boundary landscaping) and protected open space. The Council continues to explore opportunities to improve Orient Way potentially in tandem with the aspiration to extend a bus service along the route.

95 No comments made 96 So much potential to link Leyton with the Olympic Park and restore what was once a proud and distinct town centre. Comments noted. Please refer to section 9.7 97 No comments made 98 No comments made 99 No comments made 100 Access improvements to Leyton Station and potential new Ruckholt Road rail station are good ideas, plus better access to the Olympic Park. Support noted. Please refer to sections

178

9.1.5 and 9.7 101 For the improvements to go all away along Leyton high st and not just in and around the station area. More greenery Comments noted. Please refer to sections 9.4, 9.6 and 9.8 102 No comments made 103 No comments made 104 No comments made 105 No comments made 106 No comments made 107 No comments made 108 More traffic restrictions needed on Brewster round and Vicarage Road and surrounding roads to encourage cyclists and deter speeding drivers, who use the area Comments noted. Please refer to as a rat-run. section 9.1.3 which includes the Brewster and Vicarage Road areas.

109 Leyton Mills is such a relatively new development that I hope it can be modified, rather than bulldozed to start all over again at huge expense. Comments noted 110 No comments made 111 No comments made 112 No comments made 113 Plans to rethink Leyton Mills could be a good step. Leyton is a strange place in terms of not really having a centre and that could help improve that aspect. Support and comments noted 114 See above comments - Reference to comments made on Overall Vision 115 Extend shop front improvements along the entire length of High Road Leyton. Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.6 Include the provision of new youth activities and community facilities at Leyton Sports Ground in the vision for Leyton. Comments noted. There is a separate scheme to improve Leyton Cricket Ground and please refer to section 9.5 Do not pursue the proposed provision of residential housing on the current Leyton Mills site along High Road Leyton. The proximity to busy roads (High Road Comments noted. Leyton & the A12), the tube line and a very busy bus stop would make this a very unattractive environment for new housing.

179

116 This development I think has the most concerns. Partly because of the scale of the development but also the impact it will have on me personally and my Comments noted. Any potential property. The shopping around the area as said in the report is well used by the local residents and I think it would be a mistake to try and compete with the type redevelopment on the Leyton Mills site of shopping available in Westfield. The most important shops to me personally is the Asda and the B&Q They are both handy being where they are and large is likely to be a mixed use scheme enough to give you a good choice. The type of shops we have in the area may not be predominantly for my demographic, but are right for the area unless this is including replacement shops together changed by the new developments. Which personally I do not wish to see. The area has already changed organically with the introduction of good local pubs and with other uses such as employment a few restaurants. I would like to see the area enhanced not gentrified. As part of the development it is suggested that Asda is moved. Since 94% of residents use space, residential and possibly a new the local area for food shopping I would question the wisdom to this. You don't have to spend long at the retail park to see how many people walk to the shops. primary school. To move this further away from the people that the supermarket serves I think would be a mistake. The other shops on the site I think is less crucial for walking access and could be moved to a new site with good access from the A12.

I think the Extension of the high street is a good idea over the road as the area around the station is far too congested and designed for people arriving from to Support and comments noted. Please visit the shops not by foot. I also think a bridge over to the Olympic park from the retail park would be very useful. One of the main issues of the area is the access refer to sections 9.1.5, 9.5 and 9.7 to the tube. Leyton station is currently far too busy with people often queuing on the street before they can get into the station. This is because the platforms are full. I'm not sure how better access will help this. Also this would be my main concern with an increase in the areas population. I don't see how this would be dealt with in any meaningful way in the current plans. This was also a contradiction of the plans if you want people to be less car dependent then people will need to travel somehow. I think the New Spitalfields Market idea of a development is a great one. I have found that the market is quite an unapproachable place unless you are in the industry. Opening it as a foodie place or somewhere you can buy fresh produce would be great. But again it has to be accessible without putting extra pressure on the current transport system. The new neighbourhood at coronation square is an ideal development as it will have very little impact on the surrounding residents and apart from the ones mentioned previously. I also think the addition of schools and medical facilities will be crucial. Especially with the increase in population. 117 The area is fast attracting new residents and there is scope to improve the quality of the environment and services offered. Parts of the area have been neglected Comments noted. The types of uses and are prime for some attention. However, I think it's important to focus on creation and enhancement of the area as a 'neighbourhood'. Appreciate that within any potential redevelopment of bringing in more commercial uses will improve the vibrancy of the area but some of the commercial aspirations for the Leyton area feels like they are trying to the Leyton Mills site are encouraged to offshoot from Stratford a bit too much when long term a more attractive and prosperous environment may be borne from capturing and improving Leyton's be retail-led with school, transport unique charm and local neighbourhood feel. I agree there's scope for improvement to Leyton Mills but think the density of development proposed on the master improvements and residential uses as plan would create some disadvantages also. E.g. It's a huge benefit to have retail area with some parking available for local residents. Take that away and local the core of a mixed use redevelopment. residents will drive elsewhere to spend their money. It's a fine balance between variety of uses, services available and real, life convenience for people. There are Also please refer to section 9.2 also some amazing views from Leyton over the Olympic Park and City. And recent 'Leyton' signs which have added character and personality of the area can also be seen. I appreciate that there may be scope for some higher rise development but if building are pushed too high, say above 5/6, again some of the areas 'character' is Comments noted. Please refer to lost, services (tube, buses, roads etc.) are also put under pressure and the area starts to become less attractive and deters new people coming in and existing section 9.2 residents to stay. 118 No comments made 119 Not exactly sure what the new development will mean, the information was a bit vague in the brochure.... all in all I think t is a good idea. definitely a good idea Support and comments noted to revamp the area around asda and tk maxx, that feels like a real traainsmash of town planning at the moment, on prime land just by the tube, so I think that area could really use a makeover, and I don't think it could be much worse than it is at present. so go wild and get creative, I think more cafes, and pedestrian space could be good. Or even just some better shops.

120 No encroachment of green spaces should be made in any redevelopment/rezoning Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.11 121 The issue for Leyton is the sheer amount of development planned and if putting 1000 properties on a 500m space is viable and improves the quality of life? Comments noted. Please refer to section 9.2 180

All open spaces including Coronation Gardens extension should be thoughtfully considered and improved Comments noted 122 The area looks nice but again does not have much to do at the weekend so I end up going to Stratford. Comments noted. Please refer to section 9.10 Connections to Lea bridge could be better. i.e. more direct bus route. Comments noted. Please refer to sections 9.1.4and 9.7 123 The area looks nice but again does not have much to do at the weekend so I end up going to Stratford. Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.10 Connections to Lea bridge could be better. i.e. more direct bus route. Comments noted. Please refer to sections 9.1.4and 9.7 124 No comments made 125 No comments made 126 No comments made 127 I am writing to express my vociferous opposition to the proposal within your 'Lea Valley Eastside Vision' document to rezone the land around the Waterworks Comments noted. Please refer to Centre for housing and land within the ex-Thames Water Depot site for development. The area is an important space for wildlife - it is home to a variety of section 9.11 snakes, birds and insects, and a place where local residents and Londoners from further afield can explore nature. Housing on the marshes, so close to the nature reserve, would degrade the environment, polluting it with light and noise, and threaten the viability of important wildlife populations. Over the last few years, we have seen the piecemeal erosion of open space throughout the lower Lea Valley. In each case, those proposing a development have told local people that they are only losing a small piece of land. However, the cumulative effects of these developments has drastically altered the composition of the area, and is beginning to have a serious impact on the quality of life and the health and well-being of residents. Mental health and access to nature are inextricably intertwined. If the LVRPA - the very organisation tasked with protecting some of our most precious green spaces “ is encouraged by this plan to try and sell off even one acre of Metropolitan Open Land, then it is no exaggeration to say that the spectre of our marshes disappearing under high-rise tower blocks comes one step closer. Waltham Forest residents will lose much of what makes the Borough more liveable, in exchange for increased concrete, pollution and a decreased quality of life. Ill finish with a statement made by the LVRPA itself in 2011, when it opposed the housing development at Essex Wharf, just across the road from both the Thames Water Depot and the Waterworks Centre: ˜We think it will have a major adverse impact on a large area of the Park. Residential development does not fit within the remit of the Park. I couldn't have said it better myself. Please amend 'Lea Valley Eastside Vision' to ensure that Metropolitan Open Land within the London Borough of Waltham Forest is protected. 128 No comments made

181

129 RE: LEA BRIDGE AND LEYTON CONSULTATION I write to express my strong opposition to the proposal within your 'Lea Valley Eastside Vision' document to rezone Comments noted. Please refer to the land around the Waterworks Centre for housing and land within the ex-Thames Water Depot site for development. The land around the Waterworks Centre sections 9.11 and 9.12 and the ex-Thames Water Depot is Metropolitan Open Land . This means that, under the National Planning Policy Framework and the London Plan, it is protected from inappropriate development. Housing is not, and never will be, appropriate development. The area around the Waterworks Centre is used for leisure and recreation and the Lee Valley Regional Park Act does not empower the Lee Valley Regional Park Authority (LVRPA) to sell off land that is used for leisure and recreation. The LVRPA should not have suggested to you, the London Borough of Waltham Forest, that it is able to develop this land for housing. The land around the Waterworks Centre and the Thames Water Depot is floodplain. It is against both the National Planning Policy Framework and the London Plan to build on floodplain. At no point during the consultations about a new ice rink was anyone told that it would be funded by selling off recreational land. If the LVRPA cannot finance the ice rink without selling off green spaces, then it cannot afford a new ice rink. It is unconscionable that the Council, which purports to represent all residents, would support the selling off of land that people without much disposable income can use for leisure and recreation for free in order to build an ice rink that only those with money can use. Claims that the Waterworks is underused and this justifies closing it are disingenuous. It is underused only because those managing it have let it run into the ground over the last few years. There is so much that could be done to make it a vibrant community hub that pays its way. Not least the reinstatement of the very popular golf course (which we were promised would be returned to us after London 2012 anyway). The semi-natural habitats of the marshes “ of which the land around the Waterworks Centre is part “ are a haven for wildlife and home to protected species, including kingfishers, bats and dragonflies. They are also important for migrating birds. Housing on the marshes, so close to the nature reserve, would degrade the environment, polluting it with light and noise, and threaten the viability of important wildlife populations. Even if the land under proposal for development is currently is ˜underused, it provides an important and vital buffer zone to the adjacent areas of natural beauty and wildlife. To build houses on this land would not only destroy the Metropolitan Open Land on which it is built, but also adversely affect visitors enjoyment of the park close by, and further impinge on the flora and wildlife. Over the last few years, we have seen the piecemeal erosion of open space throughout the lower Lea Valley. In each case, those proposing a development have told local people that they are only losing a small piece of land. However, the cumulative effects of these developments are beginning to have a serious impact on the quality of life and the health and well-being of residents. If the LVRPA - the very organisation tasked with protecting some of our most precious green spaces “ is encouraged by this plan to try and sell off even one acre of Metropolitan Open Land, then it is no exaggeration to say that the spectre of our marshes disappearing under high-rise tower blocks comes one step closer. Ill finish with a statement made by the LVRPA itself in 2011, when it opposed the housing development at Essex Wharf, just across the road from both the Thames Water Depot and the Waterworks Centre: ˜We think it will have a major adverse impact on a large area of the Park. Residential development does not fit within the remit of the Park. This seems clear and contrary to your proposals. Please amend 'Lea Valley Eastside Vision' to ensure that Metropolitan Open Land within the London Borough of Waltham Forest is protected.

130 No comments made 131 No comments made

182

132 I am writing to express my opposition to the proposal within your 'Lea Valley Eastside Vision' document to rezone the land around the Waterworks Centre for Comments noted. Please refer to housing and land within the ex-Thames Water Depot site for development. The land around the Waterworks Centre and the ex-Thames Water Depot is sections 9.11 and 9.12 Metropolitan Open Land. This means that, under the National Planning Policy Framework and the London Plan, it is protected from inappropriate development. Housing is not, and never will be, appropriate development. The area around the Waterworks Centre is used for leisure and recreation and the Lee Valley Regional Park Act does not empower the Lee Valley Regional Park Authority (LVRPA) to sell off land that is used for leisure and recreation. The LVRPA should not have suggested to you, the London Borough of Waltham Forest, that it is able to develop this land for housing. The land around the Waterworks Centre and the Thames Water Depot is floodplain. It is against both the National Planning Policy Framework and the London Plan to build on floodplain. At no point during the consultations about a new ice rink was anyone told that it would be funded by selling off recreational land. If the LVRPA cannot finance the ice rink without selling off green spaces, then it cannot afford a new ice rink. It is unconscionable that the Council, which purports to represent all residents, would support the selling off of land that people without much disposable income can use for leisure and recreation for free in order to build an ice rink that only those with money can use. Claims that the Waterworks is underused and this justifies closing it are disingenuous. It is underused only because those managing it have let it run into the ground over the last few years. There is so much that could be done to make it a vibrant community hub that pays its way. Not least the reinstatement of the very popular golf course (which we were promised would be returned to us after London 2012 anyway). The semi-natural habitats of the marshes “ of which the land around the Waterworks Centre is part “ are a haven for wildlife and home to protected species, including kingfishers, bats and dragonflies. They are also important for migrating birds. Housing on the marshes, so close to the nature reserve, would degrade the environment, polluting it with light and noise, and threaten the viability of important wildlife populations. Over the last few years, we have seen the piecemeal erosion of open space throughout the lower Lea Valley. In each case, those proposing a development have told local people that they are only losing a small piece of land. However, the cumulative effects of these developments are beginning to have a serious impact on the quality of life and the health and well-being of residents. If the LVRPA - the very organisation tasked with protecting some of our most precious green spaces “ is encouraged by this plan to try and sell off even one acre of Metropolitan Open Land, then it is no exaggeration to say that the spectre of our marshes disappearing under high-rise tower blocks comes one step closer. Ill finish with a statement made by the LVRPA itself in 2011, when it opposed the housing development at Essex Wharf, just across the road from both the Thames Water Depot and the Waterworks Centre: ˜We think it will have a major adverse impact on a large area of the Park. Residential development does not fit within the remit of the Park. I couldn't have said it better myself. Please amend 'Lea Valley Eastside Vision' to ensure that Metropolitan Open Land within the London Borough of Waltham Forest is protected. With best wishes

133 No comments made

183

134 Dear Sir or Madam, I am writing to express my opposition to the proposal within your 'Lea Valley Eastside Vision' document to rezone the land around the Comments noted. Please refer to Waterworks Centre for housing and land within the ex-Thames Water Depot site for development. The land around the Waterworks Centre and the ex-Thames sections 9.11 and 9.12 Water Depot is Metropolitan Open Land. This means that, under the National Planning Policy Framework and the London Plan, it is protected from inappropriate development. Housing is not, and never will be, appropriate development. The area around the Waterworks Centre is used for leisure and recreation and the Lee Valley Regional Park Act does not empower the Lee Valley Regional Park Authority (LVRPA) to sell off land that is used for leisure and recreation. The LVRPA should not have suggested to you, the London Borough of Waltham Forest, that it is able to develop this land for housing. The land around the Waterworks Centre and the Thames Water Depot is floodplain. It is against both the National Planning Policy Framework and the London Plan to build on floodplain. At no point during the consultations about a new ice rink was anyone told that it would be funded by selling off recreational land. If the LVRPA cannot finance the ice rink without selling off green spaces, then it cannot afford a new ice rink. It is unconscionable that the Council, which purports to represent all residents, would support the selling off of land that people without much disposable income can use for leisure and recreation for free in order to build an ice rink that only those with money can use. Claims that the Waterworks is underused and this justifies closing it are disingenuous. It is underused only because those managing it have let it run into the ground over the last few years. There is so much that could be done to make it a vibrant community hub that pays its way. Not least the reinstatement of the very popular golf course (which we were promised would be returned to us after London 2012 anyway). The semi-natural habitats of the marshes “ of which the land around the Waterworks Centre is part “ are a haven for wildlife and home to protected species, including kingfishers, bats and dragonflies. They are also important for migrating birds. Housing on the marshes, so close to the nature reserve, would degrade the environment, polluting it with light and noise, and threaten the viability of important wildlife populations. Over the last few years, we have seen the piecemeal erosion of open space throughout the lower Lea Valley. In each case, those proposing a development have told local people that they are only losing a small piece of land. However, the cumulative effects of these developments are beginning to have a serious impact on the quality of life and the health and well-being of residents. If the LVRPA - the very organisation tasked with protecting some of our most precious green spaces “ is encouraged by this plan to try and sell off even one acre of Metropolitan Open Land, then it is no exaggeration to say that the spectre of our marshes disappearing under high-rise tower blocks comes one step closer. Ill finish with a statement made by the LVRPA itself in 2011, when it opposed the housing development at Essex Wharf, just across the road from both the Thames Water Depot and the Waterworks Centre: ˜We think it will have a major adverse impact on a large area of the Park. Residential development does not fit within the remit of the Park. I couldn't have said it better myself. Please amend 'Lea Valley Eastside Vision' to ensure that Metropolitan Open Land within the London Borough of Waltham Forest is protected.

135 As above - Community and facilities for children must factory heavily the Church Street development. Comments noted. Please refer to section 9.5 The proposed cycle lane is very much appreciated and it is extremely practical and no-doubt will be used a great deal. I'm not 100% against any form of Comments noted. Please refer to development but please, employ some talented architects and designers that can create a practical, almost simple and maintainable landscape in coordination of sections 9.1.3 and 9.8 how already looks 136 As above - Community and facilities for children must factory heavily the Church Street development. Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.5 The proposed cycle lane is very much appreciated and it is extremely practical and no-doubt will be used a great deal. I'm not 100% against any form of Comments noted. Please refer to development but please, employ some talented architects and designers that can create a practical, almost simple and maintainable landscape in coordination of sections 9.1.3 and 9.8 how already looks 137 I disagree as again the picture of the proposal looks nothing like the reality. Comment noted

184

138 Hi I am writing to express my opposition to the proposal within your 'Lea Valley Eastside Vision' document to rezone the land around the Waterworks Centre for Comments noted. Please refer to housing and land within the ex-Thames Water Depot site for development. The land around the Waterworks Centre and the ex-Thames Water Depot is sections 9.11 and 9.12 Metropolitan Open Land. This means that, under the National Planning Policy Framework and the London Plan, it is protected from inappropriate development. Housing is not, and never will be, appropriate development. The area around the Waterworks Centre is used for leisure and recreation and the Lee Valley Regional Park Act does not empower the Lee Valley Regional Park Authority (LVRPA) to sell off land that is used for leisure and recreation. The LVRPA should not have suggested to you, the London Borough of Waltham Forest, that it is able to develop this land for housing. The land around the Waterworks Centre and the Thames Water Depot is floodplain. It is against both the National Planning Policy Framework and the London Plan to build on floodplain. At no point during the consultations about a new ice rink was anyone told that it would be funded by selling off recreational land. If the LVRPA cannot finance the ice rink without selling off green spaces, then it cannot afford a new ice rink. It is unconscionable that the Council, which purports to represent all residents, would support the selling off of land that people without much disposable income can use for leisure and recreation for free in order to build an ice rink that only those with money can use. Claims that the Waterworks is underused and this justifies closing it are disingenuous. It is underused only because those managing it have let it run into the ground over the last few years. There is so much that could be done to make it a vibrant community hub that pays its way. Not least the reinstatement of the very popular golf course (which we were promised would be returned to us after London 2012 anyway). The semi-natural habitats of the marshes “ of which the land around the Waterworks Centre is part “ are a haven for wildlife and home to protected species, including kingfishers, bats and dragonflies. They are also important for migrating birds. Housing on the marshes, so close to the nature reserve, would degrade the environment, polluting it with light and noise, and threaten the viability of important wildlife populations. Over the last few years, we have seen the piecemeal erosion of open space throughout the lower Lea Valley. In each case, those proposing a development have told local people that they are only losing a small piece of land. However, the cumulative effects of these developments are beginning to have a serious impact on the quality of life and the health and well-being of residents. If the LVRPA - the very organisation tasked with protecting some of our most precious green spaces “ is encouraged by this plan to try and sell off even one acre of Metropolitan Open Land, then it is no exaggeration to say that the spectre of our marshes disappearing under high-rise tower blocks comes one step closer. Ill finish with a statement made by the LVRPA itself in 2011, when it opposed the housing development at Essex Wharf, just across the road from both the Thames Water Depot and the Waterworks Centre: ˜We think it will have a major adverse impact on a large area of the Park. Residential development does not fit within the remit of the Park. I couldn't have said it better myself. Please amend 'Lea Valley Eastside Vision' to ensure that Metropolitan Open Land within the London Borough of Waltham Forest is protected. I look forward to hearing from you

139 No comments made 140 No comments made 141 No comments made 142 No comments made 143 No comments made 144 No comments made 145 No comments made 146 No comments made 147 No comments made 148 No comments made 149 No comments made 150 No comments made 185

151 No comments made 152 According to the plans a new station is proposed on Ruckholt Road. Further thought is required on transport on the whole area with the station as a part - in Comments noted. Please refer to particular buses. The station itself will need to be thought through further as currently it will just be one stop on the line from Stratford to Tottenham Hale. For it sections 9.1.3, 9.1.5 and 9.7 really to be effective and ease the pressure on Leyton Underground it will be need to be part of cross rail acting as a spur up to and going directly into central and west London. Maybe even Stansted to Heathrow. To improve connections from Leyton and Lea Bridge into Walthamstow and Chingford then the Low Hall curve needs to be reopened. 153 No comments made 154 Response from Leyton Orient Trust is considered under 3rd party representations Please refer to section 4 155 Protect and maintain all green spaces. Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.11 156 See above - Reference to comments made on Overall Vision, Lea Bridge and Church Road sections 157 Please don't destroy Leyton anymore, lay off half the council staff and stop burning my money on all your anti car schemes. You won’t have read this far anyway Comments noted, but these points relate to wider Council policies and are not the subject of the Vision consultation. 158 No comments made 159 No comments made 160 No comments made 161 Response from Eurostar included 3rd Party Representations Please refer to section 4 162 No comments made 163 No comments made 164 No comments made 165 No comments made 166 No comments made 167 No comments made 168 Work with and around the wildlife. NOT THROUGH IT Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.11 169 No comments made 170 No comments made 171 No comments made 172 No comments made

186

173 Reduce the number of new homes/intensity of new buildings. Comment noted. Please refer to section 9.2 174 Having attended the Lea Valley Eastside Vision opening exhibition (on Saturday 7 January 2017), I spoke to representatives from the council and the architect Comments noted. Please refer to team. As we were discussing the proposals to Leyton Mills they mentioned that some of the stores might close down and be replaced with housing. Not only section 9.1.2 that, but the car park will be smaller and made underground. I was told that this was in line with the councils push for bicycles to be used more. I'm all for safety and progressive thinking, but I don't think reducing the car park size is a good move by the council. It is already extremely difficult to find parking. On the note of parking, I get the feeling that the council will also introduce a pay-to-park system here as they have done with the local leisure centres. If this is true, I wholeheartedly implore you to stop. I understand that you want to prevent other users from parking who do not use the leisure centre but it’s unfair on us who do use the facilities. Not only are we paying for our gym membership fees (and shopping) but now we have to pay for parking EVERY TIME that we come. This is very unfair. If the council would introduce a system whereby users of the facilities (whether it be leisure centres or shopping stores) would receive a refund on their parking similar to what Matalan in Leytonstone and Morrison's in Stratford do then this would be a lot more fairer. I sincerely hope you take the above into deep consideration. 175 No comments made 176 No comments made 177 No comments made 178 Leyton Mills is a true development eyesore, and if you have so many new housing to build in the area, access to this and focusing it as the mainstream retail park Comments noted is a must. Keeping the global brands and big supermarkets here would be good. Access from Leyton High Road is terrible and needs improving. Connecting it to the Olympic Park more would be good. Comments noted. Please refer to section 9.7 Coronation Gardens is greatly improved in recent times, and the food market is a great addition, more car free access around this area would improve it further Support and comments noted. Please and better promotion by the Council would be great to bring in the tourists and assist the traders to prosper. Have better parking for those trying to use the also refer to sections 9.1.2 and 9.1.5 businesses around the area. Something really needs to be done about access to the Leyton tube as this is getting too dangerous and will get more so with some many more residents arriving in the area can anything be done as part of this vision? The key way would be to build another station on Orient way so that people can use that to get to Stratford etc. and divert traffic off the central line. If buses stop so close together cannot a simple station not be built near to the Leyton Central and Bywater development?

For all of the above visions please can you ensure we do not have cheap developments that have no green space and walkways, and garden sections because Comments noted. Please refer to developers are fitting in too many properties. Some of the low level developments in Hackney/ have been very sympathetic to their environment in sections 9.4 and 9.8 recent years, with big balconies, wood cladding etc. and communal area. Can this be planned here, Leyton has suffered for too long for illegal and ugly development and extensions now is the time to give the community protection and to retain its Victorian/Edwardian buildings and to use its green space sympathetically with new builds too. Given how many people are expected to be housed in the area tight planning is required for all of this!

179 I don't know/use this area of the borough so feel that I am unable to provide very specific comments for consideration, but would like to offer some broad Comments noted. Please refer to principles for the vision for these areas instead: -Section 106 money generated by developments in Lea Bridge ward to be ring-fenced for projects within this area sections 9.5 and 9.8 -More health infrastructure e.g. GP hubs that are planned well, a Walk in Centre -Planning to only be granted if design meets design council standards and fits with local character e.g. low raise blocks -Regen/planning departments to support entertainment and social opportunities within the area - Expand the restoration aspects of this plan alongside the 'regeneration'

180 No comments made 181 No comments made 187

182 The proposal lacks considerations and practical solutions for existing residents and their parking space. It appears that there will be new shops and business units Comments noted. Please refer to in the Leyton Mills with car-free zone, which will subsequently have direct impatient on the residential parking nearby including Adelaide Road. In order to have sections 9.1.1 – 9.1.7 and 9.5 successful implementation od proposal a number of areas must be accompanied; 1) The current controlled parking (Monday to Friday 10am to 4pm) must be extended in line with the business hours of new shops in the Leyton Mills. For example, if there is a shop opening at 9am and closing at 9pm, then the controlled parking in residential areas must be the same as business hours of those shops in order to minimise the risk of negative impact on the quality of life of residents. 2) Proposed planning includes 2500 units of new homes in the Leyton Mills, however there seems to have none to minimal parking space in the planning. There are people who have no alternative means to get to work other than by car and the proposal seems to ignore the other side of coin. 3) The proposed plan and development will inevitably attract more people 24/7 for various purposes, and the detailed action plans such as health and safety measures, waste/bin collection, street cleaning, crowd control will have to be clearly communicated with all stakeholders. Alcohol and substance related public health problems are one of key priorities in the Walthamstow council, and policing should be enhanced. 4) With regards to the proposed car-free zone in the Leyton Mills areas, how efficient will that policy be to tackle CO emission & air pollution compared to these caused by airplanes that are flying directly above the residential homes 6-9 times per hour from 5:45am to 10:30pm Monday to Sunday? Robust evidence pointed out the airline/flights were one of major causes of CO emission & air pollution. Local authorities endeavour to tackle the origin of problems without delay to promote the quality of life and we'll being of residents.

183 No comments made 184 No comments made 185 Response from Metropolitan Police included in Stakeholders Responses Please refer to section 3 186 No comments made 187 No comments made 188 No comments made 189 Whilst much of the area would benefit from development/regeneration/investment, one of the things that make it a nice place to live is that there is a village-like Comments noted. Please refer to feel to the area. Any development should look to maintain this. Very tall buildings, such as that suggested on the grassy area next to LB station can't be good for sections 9.2 and 9.8 maintaining the village-like feel of the area. Building on green space absolutely should not be allowed, particularly when there are so many underused plots of land and antisocial-type Comments noted. Please refer to businesses/warehouses that detract from the quality of life. Surely these should be built on before destroying pleasant green spaces. Walthamstow Marshes and section 9.11 the whole Lea Valley area are a little known gem in London. Encourage people to come here and use the green spaces, don't destroy them. 190 I live on Adelaide Road and although the regeneration proposal is positive, it will affect the parking even further. I suggest: CONTROLLED PARKING FOR Comments noted. Please refer to RESIDENTS Monday-Sunday 9am-10pm. section 9.1.2 191 No comments made 192 No comments made 193 No comments made 194 No comments made 195 I cannot comment on proposals for parts of the Borough that I do not know. My concerns are with the proposals for the Lea Bridge area. Comments noted 196 As a Hackney resident I think it would be inappropriate for me to comment. Comment noted

188

197 No comments made 198 No comments made 199 There are enough houses & flats in Leyton already don't need any more Comments noted. Please refer to section 9.3

200 Around the tube and A12 is currently an extremely polluted area. Something needs to be embedded into the scheme here to offset this density, noise and traffic Comments noted. The A12 is known to smell so that people living in the new homes here can be free from health problems. be a major existing barrier in the local area. There was an ambition from the previous mayoral administration to explore decking over the A12 however this was found to be very expensive. The Council will continue to work with TfL to try to mitigate the impact and pollution of the A12 on the local area. Please also refer to sections 9.1.6 and 9.1.7 The way the new homes are added to the area should be about adding density sensitively so that the surroundings do not feel more dense and hectic than they Comments noted. Please refer to already do. section 9.2 The scheme would benefit strongly from more open space around buildings to create more of a European tree street feel - this would encourage more use of the Comment noted. Please refer to area and shops in the long run. sections 9.1.6 and 9.8 It would also be important to think about the types of shops desired within the scheme and to work with existing local innovation and enterprise where possible. Comments noted. Please refer to The meeting points for an area (e.g. stations)- are often the first impression of the area - businesses here etc. need to reflect the diversity of the area as a whole - section 9.8 so as to intergrade the regeneration wholelistically with what is already existing. 201 No comments made 202 As 7 Above - Reference to comments made on Church Road section 203 To include a bridge from Orient Way into the rear of the two Business Parks in Etloe Road Leyton E10. This will enable the very heavy lorries and other vehicles Comments noted. Please refer to that use the parks to enter from Orient Way. This will help not only Etloe Road residents but also Simonds and Wiseman Road residents. It will also keep the section 9.7 heavy traffic off of Church Road. The area from Orient Way across the Dagenham Brook into the rear of the two business Parks is one of the shortest routes across open land from Orient Way.

204 No comments made 205 Would like to see the Ive Farm area incorporated to the Jubilee Park as a green space with free facilities open to all. I would much prefer open free to use park Comments noted. Please refer to facilities than gated pay to use facilities. I would like to see a 400m running track incorporated into the Jubilee Park - this should not be a gated pay to use facility, section 9.5 but simple and open to all. A good example is the cinder track in Victoria Park, which also has simple trim trail equipment inside the track (for chin ups etc.) - this has constant use from members of the public, and local groups and clubs also use it for coached sessions. It would greatly enhance the facilities in the Jubilee Park to have a similar facility available to our residents.

189

Walking and cycling links between Ruckholt Road/Olympic Park and Marsh Lane need to be provided as part of new developments here. Orient way and Oliver Comments noted. Please refer to road are not pleasant to walk along - noisy, high traffic, poor air quality. Currently when walking between the Olympic park and marsh lane you have to walk sections 9.1.1 – 9.1.7 and 9.7 along an unpleasant section of Orient way between Ruckholt road junction and where the off road paths start. The green space to the east of Orient way needs paths for walking and cycling away from the busy road. The recent improvements to the Jubilee park and the paths along Orient way have been great. This needs to continue to link this corridor up better for walking and cycling. Better enforcement is needed to stop illegal parking of vehicles outside New Spitalfields market. This makes walking and cycling on Ruckholt road dangerous. More coherent segregated facilities for cycling are needed on Ruckholt road (west end) Important that all main roads have well designed segregated cycling infrastructure and residential areas are welcoming and permeable for walking and cycling and have low traffic speeds and volumes (not rat runs). Design should follow guidance of London Cycle Design Standards (LCDS) Important that links to the green spaces of Lea Valley are enhanced and accessible to all. 206 No comments made 207 1. Open public land for recreational use of residents is continually being chewed away, and needs to be protected for future generations. Housing blocks so close Comments noted. Please refer to to the nature reserve would cause light and noise pollution very detrimental to our disappearing wildlife. 2. The Waterworks Centre and nature reserve has been sections 9.2 and 9.11 a safe haven for me and many others to "escape" to over the years, especially disabled or elderly people, unaccompanied women and families with young children. I hope you have enjoyed it too! I've experienced its benefits including the exhibition, guided walks and activities. Also a cup of tea and cake in the beautiful environment of the nature reserve, hearing the birds singing away from the hustle & bustle of life and the noise and fumes of the main road! 3. Much could be done to improve & promote the Waterworks Centre, using imagination and minimal resources. The proposed use of the Ice Rink's refreshment facilities (as an alternative to the Waterworks Centre) is not practical, given its physical distance from the Bird Hide, filter beds and Nature Reserve. It would also mean having to cross busy Lea Bridge Rd. Please bear in mind too, that users of the Ice Rink are a very different type of crowd from the Waterworks Centre/Nature Reserve visitors! 4. Claims that the Waterworks Centre is underused to justify closing it disguises the fact it has been allowed to fall into neglect over recent years. It could be a valuable self-financing community resource in its own right, including the restoration of the popular golf course (we were promised this would happen after London 2012 Olympics!). 5. LVRPA could bring the Waterworks Centre back into use, to meet community needs including those of future residents of 97 Lea Bridge Road tower block development e.g. exercise, health & wellbeing initiatives. 6. The owners of the land LVRPA do not need to sell it in order to expand the Ice Centre - they have millions in reserves and the power to borrow (I'm a qualified former accountant, so understand such things!) 7. The proposed 6-storey blocks would create a hard physical barrier, removing the enjoyment of a view of open marshland for those with the good vision to be able to enjoy it, even me with my limited capacity to a certain degree. This goes completely against a main principle of the Vision: to make Leyton Marshes more visible and accessible. 9. We need to protect the environment and reduce pollution. The construction of proposed buildings would be detrimental to this. 9. Over recent years there has been gradual loss of open space throughout the Lower Lea Valley. Each time locals are told they are only losing a small piece of land. This continuing loss of land has an overall cumulative detrimental effect on the health and wellbeing of residents. 208 No comments made 209 Response from Environment Agency included in Stakeholders Responses Please refer to section 3 210 No comments made 211 Response from Aviva included in 3rd Party Responses Please refer to section 4 212 No comments made 213 No comments made 214 Do not build on any green land. Clamp down on the industrial estates that are causing huge amounts of pollution for the local residents. Comments noted. Please contact the Council's Neighbourhood service with details of particular pollution concerns or incidents. Please refer to section 9.11

190

215 No comments made 216 No comments made 217 The emphasis on regenerating and improving Leyton is incredibly welcome and a fantastic idea. It is a fantastic area steeped in tradition with good transport links Support and comments noted. Please and can become an even more fantastic area to live. A focus must be made on infrastructure, in particular in relation to public transport. Leyton tube station is refer to sections 9.1.1 – 9.1.7 and 9.7 overwhelmed and at peak hours it takes a number of tubes running through before people can get on. A train station at Ruckholt Road would be very welcome. Improving links to the Olympic Park would certainly be welcome, making it more user friendly, e.g. new pedestrian bridge connection to Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park There needs to be a restriction on high rise housing. While up to 6 or 7 floors is acceptable, anything above that will ruin the landscape and the feel of the area, Comments noted. Please refer to losing the identity that this consultation is trying to protect and enhance. Although housing is welcome, the area should not simply become a dumping ground for section 9.2 the Government to hit housing targets without regard for the effect on the area/transport/etc. or those residences in 10-20 years. Any new developers in the area should be required to benefit the local area too.

Green spaces should be protected, from parks to allotments. These (even the small one between Ruckholt Close and Marshall Road, which was mislabelled as Comments noted. Please refer to residential in the consultation maps) should be protected - once these green spaces are lost, they are lost. They are important for the health and well-being of the section 9.4 city.

Lee Valley Regional Park should also be protected and improved, to encourage more use. It's a fantastic piece of land that is overlooked. Comments noted. Please refer to section 9.11 The Leyton Food Market at Coronation Gardens was fantastic - this sort of activity should be encouraged. The Leyton Star, Leyton Technical, Marmelo are all Support and comments noted. Please great pubs/restaurants in the local area - this sort of development/type of commerce should be encouraged. More music venues would also be great. Leyton refer to sections 9.6 and 9.10 Mills is a massive space that could be modernised and better use of the space made - this would be very welcomed. 218 By re building the shopping area and adding more living space you are creating more traffic to already congested roads. This feels more to appease big brand Comments noted. Please refer to shops then any local industry or retailers. sections 9.1.1 – 9.1.7 and 9.6

219 I don't know this area very well but the idea of bring the Leyton Mills into the High Street more seems like a good idea. Support noted 220 No comments made 221 The proposal suggests a drastic rise in housing provision in this area. Even with proposed station improvements, Leyton underground station will only just be able Comments noted. Please refer to to cope with the current number of residents. Increasing the number of local residents will just add extra pressure. I am also concerned about the congestion this sections 9.1.1 – 9.1.7 and 9.2 will cause in the area, both in terms of road traffic and in bicycles and pedestrians. This has not been helped already by the narrowing of roads and pavements due to the Mini Holland scheme. I would encourage the planners to look at traffic flow and consider making some roads, such as Ruckholt Road and Dunedin Road into a one-way system. Many Tube passengers who get on at Leyton station get off at Stratford to connect to other lines. With the advent of Crossrail at Stratford in 2019, this is bound to increase. I would encourage examining extra routes to Stratford. Although Ruckholt Road station development is a good idea, this won't alleviate the commuter crush unless the trains on this line (including to Leyton High Road) are very regular i.e. every 5 minutes in rush hour. The new Ruckholt Road station also won't serve the majority of Leyton's population until the new residential developments are completed. A Leyton-Stratford shuttle bus would perhaps be a welcome idea. I also do not fully agree with all of the development at Leyton Mills, dependent on how this is constructed. This potentially will affect the rear aspect of our property, and impact on the noise for local residents, who already deal with copious traffic at the front of their houses. A new health centre in this area would also be appreciated, if the proposed construction for housing goes ahead, as there is already a lot of pressure on local Comments noted. Please refer to services. section 9.5

191

222 Strongly believe that greater consideration needs to be given to the capacity of Leyton station (underground) and that the enhanced access proposed as part of Support and comments noted. Please this Vision will not address the matter. The station at peak times is under considerable pressure and as a regular user it often feels like it is at capacity. I refer to sections 9.1.1 - 9.1.7 understand that there are proposals to conduct a transport capacity study and consideration is being given to a new train station at Ruckholt Road, improving connectivity with Stratford. Notwithstanding this and given the lack of clarity on content and timings, more detailed consideration needs to be given to the matter early particularly in light of the number of new residential units proposed (2,900). Welcome the proposed improvement to Leyton Mills retail park and enhanced connectivity with the High Road. Also welcome greater connectivity with the Olympic Park.

Keen for further public engagement on proposed building heights, particularly on the Score Centre site given the topography and existing urban form. Comments noted. There will be further consultation about the SCORE centre following the appointment of a development partner and the bringing forward of detailed design proposals (likely to be in autumn 2017). 223 Massing / Scale Coronation Gardens is the heart of Leyton Village. As such the proposed density and of blocks fronting onto Coronation Gardens should be Comments noted. Please refer to readdressed for a more sympathetic, sensitive and considered approach. Sightlines and edge condition should be clearly defined. The proposed blocks at Leyton section 9.2 Mills are like a continuation of those from Stratford and do not take into account the context of Leyton Village. This is particularly apparent in visuals of 2 x 5+ storey blocks which will be very overbearing on existing 2 storey High Street. .

Station upgrade Great Idea to extend pavement over A12. Can this happen on both sides from Westbourne Rd > Maud Rd? Suggest to Demo modern ticket hall Comments noted. Please also refer to edition to station. Revealing old station and to make place in front of station section 9.1.7 Spitalfields - Opening up a portion of the market would make a fantastic amenity in the area. Comment noted. The opportunity to increase the food range and use of Spitalfields market already forms part of the Vision. 224 No comments made 225 Response from London Parks and Gardens Trust (LPGT) included in 3rd Party Representations Please refer to section 4 226 No comments made 227 No comments made 228 All the new housing and business premises of the Lea side vision: Tall buildings create shadows which in winter have lingering black ice and cause accidents. Comments noted. Please refer to Winds are created by tall buildings which also creates accidents. All new buildings require sound absorbent materials on the outside as noise rebounds off them. sections 9.2 and 9.8

All new roads and paths of the developments should be of the updated porous asphalt reducing noise saving accidents. Leyton Underground Station all the Comments noted. Please refer to outside of the new developments should be of sound absorbing material stopping the rebound noise on local residents. The step-free entrance at Langthorne sections 9.1-9.1.7 Road on the westbound platform made for the Olympics and not used since should be open immediately. Like Snaresbrook’s Central link station notice states “Ticket Holders only this entrance is open Monday to Friday 5am-10am”. This is because of the dangerous overcrowding of stairs am. The same as at Leyton. What’s good for Snaresbrook is good for Leyton we have an equal risk of a mile end hills borough accident.

192

B Consultation Flyer

C Consultation E-mail to Stakeholder Organisations

193

D Consultation Website

194

E Consultation Questionnaire

195

F Extracts from presentation slides for consultation events

196

G Agenda for Business Round Table Event on 10 January 2017

197

H Petition

198