Waltham Forest Council have surprisingly refused the latest plans for a Tesco Express and flats on the Forest Road former Essex Arms site. On Thursday (8th Oct) they published 14 detailed reasons for turning down the application. Speaking to BAG the planning office expressed frustration that agents and architects for Tesco did not work closely with the council at the pre-application stage to overcome what they described as perfectly solvable issues.

It does however still seem likely that plans for the store and 4 storey flats will eventually get approval with the council expecting Tesco to submit a 3rd application “very shortly“.

Tesco’s first leafleted parts of the Blackhorse Road area about their plans back in August 2008, provoking much debate between those opposed to the company, the height of flats, or the effect it may have on local businesses, and those who wish to see a derelict site redeveloped. In the following 18 months many have blamed the council for delays while others are angry that Tesco as owners have allowed the site to become a squatted dilapidated eyesore.

In their 2nd application Tesco increased the height and density of the flats planned on the site, but the council implied they don’t have a problem with a four story frontage onto Forest Road. There were however concerns about the proximity of four storeys to the existing residential buildings as the Tesco flats went right up to the southern boundary. Tesco would need to move the flats back some 10 meters to get around this.
Also listed among the 14 objections are a lack of affordable housing.

BAG have not yet contacted Tesco for their response.

The date for this meeting has been shifted and is NOT now on the 13th. Apologies for any confusion or inconvenience. 

Have your say on THE FUTURE OF OUR CHILDREN AND OUR LOCAL AREA

Public meeting about the relocation of Willowfield School

Wednesday 18th of March @ 7:30pm

At Willowfield School, (main hall, entrance through the car park) Clifton Avenue, E17 6HL

Your chance to question councillors and officials about the quality of their plans 

Key issues:

===============

IMPACT ON TRAFFIC AND ENVIRONMENT

IMPACT ON SURROUNDING HOMES

HOUSING ABOVE SCHOOL

ARE THEY PLANNING A HIGH-RISE SCHOOL?

================

Contact BAG :: mobile: 07847 059 164 / email: chair@blackhorseactiongroup.org.uk

================

The Council plans to relocate Willowfield School to the area at the northern side of the playing fields and south of Blackhorse Road tube station (the old goods yard area).

The Council is consulting parents, residents and others on the planning brief, which will then shape the plans for Willowfield School. The current brief proposes the following:

• A much larger 1000 pupil school with a small provision for post-16s.
• The council has identified a limited site of 1.83 hectares of which 0.17 hectares are green belt land. The site is next to a very high-risk flood area and also right next to the overland railway line, green belt land and residential streets.
• Possibly, flats above the school development.
• Provision of a prominent ‘landmark’ building  -which usually is taken to mean a high-rise building.  No upper limit on height in current plans, though probably ‘more than 3 storeys’ high.
• A one-way traffic system to be introduced to Cornwallis Road, Lloyd Road, Hawarden Road and part of Edward Road.
• Car parking restrictions in the area.
• No guarantees that the building will provide any free or affordable facilities for community use, despite vague promises.

Walthamstow is a suburb in North East London. Since it is the terminus of the Victoria Line and has suburban rail servcies too is is one of the most accessibe places in London. However most of it was developed in the late nineteenth century with mostly two storey buildings. The plan was to make Walthamstow a reception area for higher density to capitalise on its accessibility but this was met with a storm of protest against high rise developemnts. Earlier developemnts in the East End had imposed tower blocks which were not only very unpopular but had also become very unsafe. They held an enquiry by design which showed that mansion blocks of 5 to 8 storeys with internal courtyards, and terraces with more than 2 storeys woudl be acceptable and increase net resiential density. They also developed a plan to rebuild the existing one storey shopping mall into a 5 to 7 storey building with retail on ground floor. They also “increased permeability” of the centre to create easy walk to station. In a survey this design was preferred by 60% of the respondents. When built out they will have added 2,438 new households and also reduced emissions of CO2 by 4,654 tonnes.

Opposition to development is based on the impact that people have experienced. Development has usually made the place worse. The aim now is to produce developments that enhance the quality of people’s lives.

We learned various details about bats and heard their noises on a “Bat detector” which was tuned into the appropriate bat frequency. We couldn’t see any bats as it was dark but the walk over Walthamstow Marshes with an orange moon hanging low over the land was very enjoyable indeed.  We were back outside the pub again at around 10.15 pm.

People must have enjoyed it as Jeanette, our bat walk guide counted the donations of everyone. The grand total came to £37.70.  Thank you everyone for your generosity.

In the future we will strive to organise more public events for residents to participate.

Without any further ado here’s the rest of the news:

LATEST ON THE BLACKHORSE ROAD TOWER BLOCKS

On the back of the comments you made individually and the ones we have passed on, we have had an opportunity to meet members of the council about the proposed 23 storey tower blocks to the back of Blackhorse Road. This shows that we are being listened to!

On the 27th August we met Bob Belam (Lib Dem), (Portfolio Holder for Environment and Regeneration) and John Macklin (Lib Dem), (Portfolio Holder for Service Modernisation and Deputy Leader of the Council) who both seemed eager to hear our views and were sympathetic. On the 3rd September we also managed to meet Terry Wheeler (Lab), (Portfolio Holder for Enterprise and Investment). He stated that the original plan to build vast tower blocks has been shelved.

So if that’s true congratulations must go to everyone who gave their views to us and the council! It doesn’t end there though, a new architect is taking over and new proposals are being developed on which we have no details or assurances over quality, height or ways in which the whole project can benefit the community as a whole.

We have renewed our argument that any development on BHL2 should have mixed facilities for the local community, but we got the strong impression that the Council thinks that very unlikely. So, maybe one battle won but a huge fight still looming.

In addition, we will see new plans to be brought forward to meet the strategy to increase the amount of accommodation available in the Borough. We will keep fighting to be a part of the planning and thinking about them and will keep you posted.

Future meetings are in the pipeline with councillors as well as the developers including English Partnerships and Circle Anglia.

We will continue to put forward residents views at meetings with key players and will provide feedback – and ensure that you remain a part of the action.

NORTH LONDON WASTE PLAN

A new residents group has been set up to stop Waltham Forest becoming North London’s dumping ground. Six new ‘industrial’ sites are proposed, four of these are planned to be in the Lea Valley, and one is earmarked for Blackhorse Road.

There’s a demonstration against the plans on Tuesday the 30th September at 6pm on the Town Hall steps.

Visit Residents Against Pollution for more info and to download some of their very stylish posters.
*The Residents Against Pollution group is supported by the Socialist Party, although RAP have contacted BAG to point out that they are a residents group and not officially linked or funded by the Socialist Party (not that BAG has anything either pro or anti to say about the Socilaist Party!!)

TESCO EXPRESS

Opinion seems divided on plans for a Tesco Express store on the former site of the Essex Arms on Forest Road (2-3 minutes walk from Blackhorse Road tube).

The proposed store would have 9 car parking spaces, secure bays for 14 bikes and would be open between 7am and 11pm.

Debate has raged over whether this will decimate local business’s and destroy diversity or whether it’s actually a good use of a derelict site.

Visit here for more information and to give us your views.

LONG LIVE THE STANDARD

The Standard Music Venue has been given a temporary reprieve from the bulldozer. Developers have reportedly shelved the scheme, due to the slowdown in the housing market. There is however an agreement to buy in place that gives them the right to return to the deal whenever the housing market recovers.

Read more here.

SAVE OUR STOW

BAG found some old Walthamstow Dogs footage from 1937, 1968 and 1986 down the back of the sofa so we’ve put together a 30 minute video tribute to “The Stow” through the ages.

Watch “The Soul of Walthamstow: 75 years of ‘The Stow’” here.

The latest news is that representatives of Save Our Stow have met with housing developers L&Q.

L&Q issued the following press release:

L&Q acting on behalf of the above consortium met with the SOS consortium on the 17th September.

This was not, as has been reported, a meeting to negotiate the sale of the land. No deal has been agreed between us and the SOS consortium. Instead this meeting was an opportunity for the SOS consortium to actually introduce themselves, for them to present a more detailed business proposal and to provide evidence that funds are available for any proposed purchase. The proposal received on the 23rd July was far too brief to be considered.

Following this meeting we are now able to look at their proposal and give it our full consideration. Once a decision has been made we will contact the SOS consortium directly. As this is a private business matter until a decision has been reached we have no further comment with regards to the proposal.

VICTORIA STILL EARLY TO BED

BBC London has revealed that early closures on the Victoria Line are likely to continue throughout 2009 after a brief pause for Christmas and New year.

Watch the BBC London report including a look at the new trains.

Save Our Stow put together this handy guide to help but phone WF on 020 8496 6775/6777/6774/6773 if you’re stuck

1. Go to this page: http://walthamforest-consult.limehouse.co.uk/portal
2. Register as a private individual with your name and email address. You’ll get a confirmation email which will allow you to log in.
3. Look at the bottom of the page for the document marked ‘Core Strategy Issues and Options’
4. Click on the link marked ‘Core Strategy Issues and Options’ and then click ‘Read Document’
5. Scroll to the bottom of the page and click ‘Next’
6. The document outlines the options facing the borough for the future and gives you points to ‘Add Comments’ throughout.
7. When you get to a page which is pink and blue, click ‘Add Comments’ – below the comments box is a summary of the options and issues and a summary of some options.
8. Please fill in the comments part of the form with anything you feel relevant. Select options A,B,C or D etc where you feel they are appropriate. You can select more than one at a time.
9. You can make comments and select options in Chapters 3 to 11.
10. When you finish writing each comments for each section, press ‘Submit’.

The document takes about half an hour to an hour to fill in but you can always fill in whats most important to you first and then return to it.

The following points may be of relevance:
Issue 3.1 – A locally distinctive borough
Issue 3.5 – Flood risk
Issue 5.1 – Sustainable Economic Development (Walthamstow Dogs is one of the biggest employers in the borough)
Issue 8.4 – Access to social and community facilities

The Council’s consultation on “Annexe to Planning Obligations – SPD Blackhorse Lane Planning Obligations Strategy” or in English, the Blackhorse Road development consultation closes Friday (8 August).

You can read the document and electronically comment on the Blackhorse Lane Regeneration site.

Please send your individual responses via email to the Council (email).

BAG have sent local councillors our response to the consultation, see the document below, or Download the PDF.

At present the scheme appears to be experiencing delays, but we’re keeping an eye out for any news and will keep residents informed as soon as we hear anything!

Blackhorse Action Group’s response to the consultation
Annexe to Planning Obligations SPD – Blackhorse Lane Planning Obligations Strategy
By email – 6 August 2008

Dear Sirs

I am writing on behalf of the Blackhorse Action Group (BAG) in response to your invitation to comment on your proposals for funding the infrastructure required to support the new development in the Blackhorse Lane and Blackhorse Road area.

I would like to state from the outset that BAG has serious reservations about the proposed developments which straddle Forest Road and Ferry Lane and would appreciate the opportunity to discuss these with you in further detail.
We are particularly concerned that there is a lack of clarity about how the stated Objectives are going to be met and the extent to which the proposed tariff and other funding streams are going to contribute to an improved environment which is sustainable and which will result in the creation of a vibrant community of which we can all be proud.

Sitting as we do on the banks of the River Lee, we are ideally located to see how development around us is progressing. We have been struck by the visible poverty of Edmonton and its high rise housing developments, compared with the increasing prosperity of Hackney and its low level housing.
As you will appreciate, we are keen to see Waltham Forest take a leaf out of Hackney’s development book rather than that of Edmonton.

We question your apparent preference for high rise developments in this respect together with your plan to build a new school on a flood plain and next to green belt land.

The building of a new school in this area:

• carries with it risks in an area which is frequently flooded;
• will (together with the high rise blocks) spoil a much valued landscape;
and
• has limited use given that it is being built in an area where the majority of the new housing will be for single use and couples, rather than residents with school age children.
Objective 1
The plans that we have seen so far at the open evenings have focused on Housing in BHL2. We have not seen anything that relates to improved retail and leisure facilities. We are yet to be convinced that what is being proposed offers an ‘attractive gateway’.

PPG1 stresses the need for good design to promote sustainable development and the importance of design considerations. It states that the ‘appearance of proposed development and its relationship to its surroundings are material considerations in determining planning applications’ and urges the need for
new design to improve the quality of the existing environment.

PPG3 sets out the need to ensure that ‘new housing and residential environments are well designed and make a contribution to promoting urban renaissance and improving the quality of life’.

We have seen no evidence of anything that responds to the criteria set out in PPG1 and 3 to date.

We would welcome your rationale for the density which is being proposed which appears to be at a higher level than that recommended by English Partnerships in Urban Design Compendium (2007).

Objective 2 and Objective 6

We have not seen any plans that demonstrate how the new community proposed with the development at BHL2 (and indeed the existing community) are going to be able to take advantage of the Lee Valley Regional Park. We understand from the builders that there is a tunnel below Ferry Lane and the railway line which could provide access, but that this is blocked by a generator and that it also risks being flooded.

Objective 4

To the best of our knowledge, there is no planned business development within BHL2.

Objective 5

We have not seen any proposals for public services to improve the quality of life in the proposals contained in the development of BHL2.

At 1.6, you refer to extensive public and stakeholder consultation on the IPPF.
We would strongly dispute this, not least because the proposals that have been put forward in relation to BHL2 were at the outset very sketchy and remain so to this day. Indeed, the IPPF focused almost exclusively on development to the north side of Forest Road/Ferry Lane and to an extent on the Station Hub. It did not cover BHL2 in any depth.

The following which appeared in the IPPF:

On site BHL2 located behind Blackhorse Road Station and incorporating a semiderelict goods yards and industrial premises, the vision is for a residential development on the eastern portion of the site (BHL2a) and a relocated Willowfield secondary school in new purpose built premises on the western portion of the site (BHL2b) adjacent to (and offering improved access to) the Douglas Eyre Playing Fields.

The height of the blocks was skimmed over in the original documentation and has increased at each public open evening, we have not been given a clear indication from the developers of:

• the number of occupants;
• the type of dwellings proposed; or
• the timescale.

You will appreciate that this makes it difficult for us to gauge whether or not you are pitching the tariff at the right level. It also makes it difficult for us to comment if:

• the goal posts keep moving; and
• our concerns to date do not appear to have been addressed.
BAG believes that local residents understand the local area, valuing its intrinsic character and recognising its deficiencies. The local community’s interests are not being addressed by the scheme resulting in both existing and incoming residents being severely disadvantaged. The character of the area and its community identity will suffer unless local concerns are given proper attention. Our detailed comments follow.

We look forward to hearing from you and would be grateful if you could address your response to chair@blackhorseactiongroup.org.uk

Yours faithfully
Blackhorse Action Group

————————————————
BLACHORSE ACTION GROUP

DETAILED COMMENTS

1.6 and 1.8
We concur that there is a need for any new development to be sustainable
and successful and must not adversely impact on the quality of life or the level
of services provided to existing residents and businesses. We also believe
that any new development should enhance and add to what already exists.
BAG is concerned that the first phase of development likely to be submitted
for planning permission and then implemented in the Blackhorse Road area is
for large-scale, high density and exclusively residential proposals. Occupation
of this development by up to 1000 new residents will place an unsustainable
and damaging impact upon existing infrastructure provision in the area.
It is noteworthy that most of the infrastructure to support the entire new
development is located in BHL1 and that BHL2 is cut off from this by a major
road and railway line.
There is no certainty regarding either the detailed content or proposed
timescales for other phases which are intended to provide for community
facilities alongside other infrastructure provision. Moreover, the delivery of
these other phases is more seriously in doubt in the light of the current
economic climate. This could mean that the development at BHL2 may be in
place months or years before the infrastructure to support it is built in BHL1 or
developed from what is already here. For example, there is a need to ensure
that measures are in place to support the additional traffic and pressures on
existing transport facilities (the tube as well as buses) at the outset.
BAG urges the Council to review its brief for this first phase of intensive
residential development to ensure that it makes a direct contribution to both
the existing and new community by, for example, incorporating a mix of uses
and community facilities at ground level to meet the needs of both existing
and new residents and to comply with the intentions of the final sentence in
1.8. BAG asks the Council to confirm that the infrastructure to support the
accommodation at BHL2 will be ready at the same time as BHL2.
1.10

BAG would wish to see further details on proposals for the assessment of
local area infrastructure needs and the likely contribution to these from public
funds. In particular the following questions are raised:
• To what extent does the audit of existing facilities highlight their
paucity for the existing community?
• What is the brief for this assessment?
• What headings / topics will it include?
• What methodologies are proposed for the assessment?
• Who will carry it out?
• What inputs will there be from the local community?
• What is the timescale for a) commencement and b) completion of the
assessment?
• What procedures will be carried out from its initial findings to its formal
adoption?
BAG would be keen to learn what the priorities are for the use of the tariffs
collected under the BHL2 development. BAG would also welcome
confirmation from the Council that infrastructure to support the development at
BHL2 does not risk being held up until work in BHL1 is underway/ has been
completed.

We would also like to hear what priority the Council has afforded to the new
Waterside Development.

1.14

BAG would like confirmation that the proposed tariff (with details on what it will
be used for and projected costs) applicable to the local area be produced as a
Supplementary Planning Document in its own right with full consultation and
formal adoption procedures, in line with Government guidance from CLG
(paras 30-32 in document dated January 2008) on the Community
Infrastructure Levy.

1.15

We support the aim of having a clear income stream, but are concerned that
there is no clarity on the proposed length of time for which the tariff will be
collected. We are particularly concerned that pooling the contributions for
flexible spending in light of changing timescales could, if not managed
effectively, mean that funding will be delayed alongside delays imposed by
developers. We would like to see a proposal that recognises that the tariff will
be needed for twenty years with a clear plan of how the Council (and other
public service providers) will continue to ensure that public facilities are
supported after that.
Will the payment of a tariff mean that developers will not have to provide ANY
infrastructure provision, including community facilities, themselves? If this is
not the case, it would be helpful to know what infrastructure provision will be
provided directly.
Some facilities which would provide value and services to the community and
help to ensure a more sustainable development could be commercial or
privately funded (e.g. shops, cafes, nurseries and creches, local small
business or workshop opportunities, meeting places and cultural spaces),
possibly with publicly-funded subsidies for local users or subsidised rents for
marginal start-up businesses. They would also be a welcome addition to the
current proposals for BHL2 where there is, disappointingly, no mention of
mixed use buildings at ground level which would also improve safety and
security and enable sustainable community for new and existing residents.
This is particularly poignant in an area of Walthamstow where recent housing
developments which are NOT mixed use are now guarded against criminal
activity by a permanent security presence (Stephenson Road, near The Firs
Medical Centre).
Would the payment of the tariff preclude such provision as all the
infrastructure would effectively be Council-owned, supplied and managed?
BAG consider that this would be a disappointing outcome and does not
illustrate an effective move to encourage good quality private investment
which would contribute to an overall improvement of the area.
Does the tariff approach also mean that opportunities to integrate
infrastructure (and especially community facilities) into the fabric and
construction of a development may be missed, and that monies received will
then be expended elsewhere in the area? This could result in new
infrastructure being delayed or being in locations that are physically
disconnected from the main accommodation and could also mean that it is
more costly as the economies of scale and integration available during
planning and construction will be unavailable.
2.1
As noted above, BAG would question whether the tariff is adequate given the
lack of information we have been given about the current gaps in service
provision in the area and the number of residents and demography of the
residents proposed under the new development. We are also concerned that
the proposed tariff does not take into account the need for uprating year on
year to ensure that there is a continued income stream to maintain the
infrastructure.
2.3
BAG had originally assumed that the mix of accommodation would favour
single people and couples, but had been led to believe by Green Issues that
there would be a fair number of family sized units within BHL2. We had been
unable to ascertain from the developers how many people they were
intending to build for at any of the open evenings. The nearest we got (and
hence our questioning that there has been an extensive consultation) was
information between the first set of open evenings and the second set was
that they needed to provide for more people. You note here that you are
planning 2046 new homes for 3824 additional residents. A crude calculation
tends to support the view that there is not going to be a large amount of family
units. BAG has reservations about the move towards less family
accommodation. Our experience of high density accommodation in previous
decades has suggested that this building policy which is not mixed use,
becomes a magnet for antisocial and criminal behaviour.

BHL2 is at risk of this to a greater extent because it is isolated from the
infrastructure that is proposed to support it and will be some distance from
any services.
2.7
BAG’s understanding of the BHL2 proposals is that there is no provision for
public space, save for concrete squares between the tower blocks. BAG
consider that this is likely to attract antisocial behaviour.
2.9
BHL1
BAG are concerned that there is no discernible way of linking the north side of
Ferry Lane/Forest Road with the south side, so that the pedestrian and cycle
paths link Hawarden Road to the Waterfront Park. BAG are keen to ensure
that any links will be safe for both adults and children. BAG are keen to hear
what the timeframe is for this development.
BAG are concerned that the proposal for a neighbourhood centre is that this
will remain in private ownership. Whilst we are keen to see investment from a
range of sources, we believe that in an area that is already poorly served by
community facilities there is a need for the Council to play a part. Not only
would the current community benefit from a community facility, but it would
also benefit from the provision of leisure facilities which tend to be located in
the north and east of the Borough.
BHL2
As above, BAG are concerned about the logistics of linking BHL1 to BHL2,
taking into account the road and the railway line (and the flood plain.)
2.11
BAG welcomes the Council’s commitment to seek other types of obligation in
so far as they impact upon the environment. In this respect we are particularly
keen to ensure that any new development respects the need to be
environmentally friendly and sustainable, using the most advanced forms of
expertise available.
3.2
As noted above, BAG are concerned that the tariff is payable at
commencement of development. This could be 3 years after consent which
may in itself be many years ahead. This could mean that the infrastructure to
support BHL2 cannot be put in place if, say, the development at BHL1 or one
of the other sites is delayed. Equally, developers are likely to want to
postpone their payments until the latest possible date so that they can
continue to use the funding to increase their own profits.

3.3 – 3.5
BAG are keen to learn what might result in a reduction of the tariff within this
area as this may impact adversely on the proposed infrastructure (as per 1.10
above). BAG could envisage, for example, the case being made by
developers for a reduction in the tariff because of the additional cost of
making BHL2 workable. This may relate to additional measures to mitigate
against the existing flood plain or the lack of access between BHL1 and
BHL2. This would not mean that the need for a robust infrastructure would
diminish but could mean that there would be less funding to provide it. BAG
seek the Council’s clarification on this.
3.6 – 3.8
As noted already, BAG are concerned that proposals to develop the
necessary infrastructure could be delayed if parts of the overall development
are not carried out within the planned timetable. BAG are keen to ensure that
the process of managing these funds includes provision to seek views from
the community on the spend and is also transparent and accessible to the
community.
3.9 – 3.11
As noted above, BAG seeks the Council’s clarification on the capital sum and
commuted sum payments. We seek your confirmation that you have
assessed this for twenty years to support maintenance of the infrastructure.
Appendix B: Tariff calculation
BAG are concerned that so little of the tariff is being given to the provision of
community and cultural facilities. In an area which is already low on this
provision BAG would like to see the Council putting in place facilities that will
attract young professionals and families into the area and create an enhanced
sense of community. BAG notes that this part of Walthamstow has a sense of
heritage and pride in a community which was originally developed by the
Warner family on a philanthropic basis and asks the Council to use the
opportunity of this new development to build on that heritage and to support
that community. BAG is also concerned that there is no intention to increase
the provision of leisure facilities which would be easily accessible to the
community.
BAG are equally concerned about the need to ensure that there are adequate
library services and note their disquiet regarding the recent closure of the
library in Coppermill Lane.

Appendix C: Infrastructure Requirement
Education
BAG have serious reservations about the Council’s plans to expand
Coppermill Primary School. Given the large area that the BHL development
covers, it is evident that parents are likely to use cars to get their children to
school. We have seen no plans that demonstrate what the increased use of
cars around the school will look like and what measures are being considered
to ensure that the area can cope with the added volume.
BAG are equally concerned about the proposed relocation of Willowfield
School in an area of flood risk and on green belt. We oppose this. We do not
consider that this is an appropriate location for a new school and would
welcome the Council’s explanation of why it is pushing ahead with this
proposal and has seemingly not seriously considered alternatives in the area.
Not only do we have severe reservations in light of recent and frequent
flooding of the playing fields, but we also question the use of Council (and
Council Tax payers) money and other funding in the absence of central
Government funding because of the green belt and flood risk issues. BAG are
concerned that these additional and inevitable costs will at least partially if not
completely fall to be funded from the tariff and this will mean that there is less
available funding for other infrastructure.
BAG would be keen to hear what the Council proposes if the relocation of
Willowfield School fails because of the issues identified or for other reasons.
BAG asks the Council what alternative options there are and what the costs
would be – including land acquisition costs – and how this will be funded.
BAG is also keen to hear from the Council on how much funding it has
invested to date in its plans to relocate Willowfield School. BAG suggests that
the Council locate the school in an area that does not carry these risks and
means that the school will not potentially drain resources from other sources
including the proposed tariff.
BAG are disappointed that there are no proposals for open space
improvements at Stoneydown which is the closest existing open space to BHL
2 and nearby residents and no allowance for land, construction, equipment or
maintenance of any new public realm facilities (e.g. play areas, landscape
areas, etc.) on BHL 2 site. Are these all to be privately owned and
maintained?
We are equally concerned that there is no provision for:
• community use of / public access to Douglas Eyre Playing Fields;
• streetscape improvements in surrounding area south of Forest Road
or improved access to town centre; and
• new / improvements to children’s play or youth facilities.

Employment
BAG would be keen to hear what proposals the Council has to attract higher
quality employment and the extent to which the Council forecasts that this will
be available to the existing and new residents in the area. BAG are keen to
ensure that the tariff supports both new residents and existing residents in
ensuring that they can access the new jobs expected to be created.
Transport and Highways
We have alluded to this in previous comments, but we remain concerned that
the improvements proposed are dependent on money being made available in
the short term (commensurate with the development of BHL2). If this is not
the case, then there will be pressure on existing services which, as the
Council notes, are already stretched. The Council notes that the estimated
increase in road use will be 20%. BAG would like to draw the Council’s
attention to the traffic build up (and associated air pollution) during peak times
on Forest Road, Blackhorse Lane and Ferry Lane.
Parking management scheme
Much of the BAG area is already covered by CPZs. We seek the Council’s
reassurance that developments at BHL2 will not result in the use of existing
CPZs by those living in the new development. BAG note that the current
CPZs are already fully used and there are often not spaces for existing
residents.
Cycle park at Blackhorse Road Station
BAG welcomes a cycle park but would appreciate confirmation from the
Council that there is adequate provision for its upkeep in years to come.
Lee Valley cycle route/path
As noted in our comments on Objectives 2 and 6 above, BAG seeks
clarification on whether the cost of the Lee Valley cycle route includes the cost
of constructing a new and accessible underpass / bridge for railway and
Forest Road to link Coppermill / Douglas Eyre playing fields with area north of
Forest Road? This link alone could be very expensive and subject to flood
risk. The land take is indicated in Table 2.1, associated with BHL 2, but would
not necessarily include the acquisition of land below / above railway and road
to north of site (and not owned by developers) and associated cost of
construction.

Blackhorse Lane/Billet Road streetscaping/road safety
BAG have reservations that the funding the Council suggests will cover this is
not going to be sufficient to ensure that all parts of the new development
(including BHL2) are either:
• pedestrian-friendly;
• safer; or
• more attractive.
We consider that the issues of safety and appearance are fundamental to the
whole of this development and the Council needs to make adequate provision
for all ages – young and old, as well as those of working age who live or will
live in this area.
Bus priority measures and increased frequency
BAG welcomes measures to improve the 158 service, but would ask the
Council to also consider what measures are going to be introduced to improve
Tube provision from Blackhorse Road. The station is already suffering with
the volume of passengers and the sporadic nature of service on the Victoria
Line. Additional residents are going to increase the existing pressure on the
service. We would welcome information about how the Council is taking this
forward with TfL.
Public open space
BAG are disappointed by the lack of thought that has been given to date to
public open space in relation to BHL2. We would welcome the Council’s
opinion on how this can be enhanced and how developers can be encouraged
to work with and complement existing open spaces so that they are open to
all.
Equally important for all those residents on the south side of the development
is easy and safe access to open space on the north side. BAG are not
convinced that this has been afforded the consideration it needs in the current
proposals.
Community facilities
As noted above, BAG question the lack of priority the Council is giving to
supplying community/ cultural and library facilities. Like the LDA in its
response to the IPPF, we are concerned that there are not enough facilities
and that those listed at 5.10 of the IPPF are a long way away from BHL2.

BAG agrees with the Council that there is currently a shortage of youth
facilities and activities and poor coordination of existing facilities. BAG is also
concerned that there is a shortage of facilities for working residents and those
who have retired. BAG are keen to ensure that measures are put in place to
encourage residents to get together as a community and urge the Council to
reflect on this further. BAG is keen to see in this regard that the Council
makes provision for The Standard music venue in its future development of
the area.
In addition, BAG are keen to learn how the Council proposes to engage with
existing community groups to identify what residents want and need and how
the Council proposes to promote community development initiatives by
funding local community groups.
BAG would be keen to learn more about what is being proposed to date. All
we know is that there is provision for a new 500 sq. m building (but no
provision for location or land acquisition). We are not clear whether the sum
that has been allowed (£1.265m) is sufficient for all necessary fixtures, fittings,
equipment and staffing or whether it is simply the cost of the building structure
and fabric. If the latter, BAG would welcome further information from the
Council on how the other funding requirements will be met.
As we have noted above, BAG are concerned in this respect and more
generally that there are potentially insufficient sums allowed for ongoing
management / maintenance of community facilities, open space, play space
and so on. These costs can be considerable and BAG would like to see the
Council seeking a commuted sum from developers to cover costs for, say, 20
years, after which the costs will revert to the Council.

The council wants your views on the Blackhorse Lane re-development, and more importantly who pays for and is obliged to provide what. Here’s what the council says:

“The draft Planning Obligations Strategy for Waltham Forest has now been published for consultation. As part of this there is a specific area based strategy for Blackhorse Lane which sets out how developers will be expected to contribute to the cost of schools, parks, public transport and street improvements through ‘Section 106’ payments“.

Fully understood..? Don’t worry its much less clear than it at first appears!

Essentially building lots of housing is guaranteed (it’s where the money is (or at least was). Everything else like access to green space, improving the night time economy (the council had promised to reprovide The Standard Music Venue), community spaces, etc etc is up for argument over who provides what and who pays.

The Council will charge a set Section 106 contribution for each new residential unit and per new square metre of commercial floor space. BAG questions whether the payment of a tariff will effectively mean that developers will not have to provide ANY infrastructure provision, including community facilities, themselves?

Visit the council site here to submit your views

BAG is also concerned that the first phase of development is for large-scale, high density and exclusively residential proposals. Occupation of this development by up to 1000 new residents will place an unsustainable and damaging impact upon existing infrastructure provision in the area.

The later phases in which community facilities, access and the like are promised currently have no detailed content or proposed timescales. Moreover, the delivery of these other phases could be seriously in doubt in the light of the current economic climate.

With this uncertainty BAG urges the Council to review its brief for the first phase of intensive residential development to ensure it makes a direct contribution to the community by, for example, incorporating a mix of uses and community facilities at street level to meet the needs of both existing and new residents. This is the only way the council can meet its own statement here:

“Effective methods of funding these physical and social infrastructure requirements are needed particularly to make sure that they are in place at the very early stages of the development so that new residents can benefit from them and existing residents not be disadvantaged“.

Some facilities which would provide value and services to the community and help to ensure a more sustainable development could be commercial or privately funded (e.g. shops, cafes, nurseries and creches, local small business or workshop opportunities), possibly with publicly-funded subsidies for local users or subsidised rents for marginal start-up businesses. Would the payment of the tariff preclude such provision as all the infrastructure would effectively be Council-owned, supplied and managed?

Does the tariff approach also mean that opportunities to integrate infrastructure (and especially community facilities) into the fabric and construction of a development may be missed, and that monies received will then be expended elsewhere in the area, possibly at a later and indeterminate date, and in ways or at locations that are physically disconnected from development sites, and possibly at greater expense as the economies of scale and integration available during planning and construction will be unavailable?

BAG would also like to see further details on proposals for the assessment of local area infrastructure needs and the likely contribution to these from public funds. In particular the following questions are raised:

What is the brief for this assessment?

What headings / topics will it include?

What methodologies are proposed for the assessment?

Who will carry it out?

What inputs will there be from the local community?

What is the timescale for a) commencement and b) completion of the assessment?

What procedures will be carried out from its initial findings to its formal adoption?

Do you want the future of Blackhorse Rd to be tonnes of high-rise concrete and more congestion?

The 23-STOREY, 230 FEET HIGH BLOCK is part of a planned ‘super-density’ housing development near the station, with OVER 400 FLATS for up to 1,000 people in 10 TOWER BLOCKS, squeezed into only 1.7 hectares (thats less than two football pitches).

The huge buildings are far higher than any other in the area (mostly two storey Victorian terraces) and will create a precedent for more tower blocks in Walthamstow. It will also add hundreds more people to the rush hour crushes in cars, buses, tubes and trains. There’s also a much larger development planned for the area north of Forest Road, adding even more people and cars to the Blackhorse Rd bottleneck.

TO STOP A 23 STOREY TOWER BLOCK BEING BUILT AT BLACKHORSE ROAD WE NEED LOCAL PEOPLE TO SUBMIT THEIR VIEWS, ALONG WITH THEIR NAME AND EITHER AN EMAIL OR HOUSE ADDRESS. WE CAN THEN PROVE TO COUNCIL PLANNERS THAT THE LOCAL COMMUNITY WANTS MORE THAN JUST HUGE TOWER BLOCKS.
WE WILL NOT CLOG UP YOUR EMAIL OR DOOR MAT WITH JUNK!  ALTERNATIVELY BECOME A MEMBER OF BAG HERE.

BAG WANTS THE DEVELOPMENT TO BE….
…on a smaller scale; less dense; better designed; sustainable; sympathetic to the area; with community spaces, facilities and services; meeting the needs of residents.

WHERE WILL IT BE?

WHY IS IT PLANNED?
The council wants to build 2,000 flats in the Blackhorse Lane area. Over 400 of these are earmarked for the site next to the tube station. Many more flats are planned on the north side of Forest Road.

WHEN IS THE BUILDING DUE?
After an inadequate public ‘consultation’, planning permission may be applied for in summer 08 and building could start as early as autumn 08.

THE OWNER & DEVELOPER
Government agency English Partnerships owns the land. The developer is the Key London Alliance, which is private house-builders Barratt Homes and Inspace, and housing associations Circle Anglia and Notting Hill Housing Group.

JOIN THE CAMPAIGN TO SAY NO TO THE ‘CONCRETE AND CONGESTION’ PLAN AT BLACKHORSE RD

1. TOO HIGH
Developers haven’t learnt from the anti-social, alienating high-rises of the 1960s and 70s. If this 23-storey block gets consent, it creates a precedent for more in the area.
The tower block contradicts what the council has said about taller buildings being: “out of keeping with the character of the area” and “particularly inappropriate”* when they’re close to greenbelt land like the Lea Valley Special Protection Area right next to it!

2. TOO DENSE
Over 2,000 new flats are planned for the Blackhorse Lane area. Over 400 of these are proposed for a small area of 1.7 hectares next to the tube station.  This is much denser than other local housing, and has no significant open spaces.

The proposal is…
3. TOO RESTRICTED
The proposal only includes housing. There are no shops, businesses, communal facilities or usable open spaces for people. This is a recipe for social alienation and anti-social behaviour.
The development will add more traffic to the jams at the Blackhorse Road cross-roads, and swell the crowds on our pressured tube, buses and trains.

4. ADDS TO OVERCROWDED TRANSPORT

The development will add more traffic to the jams at the Blackhorse Road cross-roads, and swell the crowds on our pressured tube, buses and trains.

5. POORLY DESIGNED
The height and bulk of the buildings will tower over the area and local housing. At ground level it will be walled in and used mainly by vehicles rather than as landscaped open space. There are no shop fronts, communal and work spaces, services or other facilities to bring the place alive for local people.

6. SPOILING THE AREA
This is a super-dense bunker. It will dominate the existing two-storey homes nearby and damage the character of the nearby streets.

7. UNSUSTAINABLE
The design is to a minimal level of sustainability for energy efficiency, water/ waste management and countering climate change. This level of sustainability is well below what owner English Partnerships champions on other sites.

*Waltham Forest council’s Unitary Development Plan, March 2006

The Blackhorse Action Group (BAG) is the residents association for the Blackhorse Rd area. We are not a party political group.

OTHER POSTS ON THIS SUBJECT (CLICK BELOW)
%RELATEDPOSTS%

To find out more, email developmentandplanning@blackhorseactiongroup.org.uk