Fairlop Waters Baseline Report – Feedback

The following is Jenny’s feedback from Tuesday’s Session 4 and on the Baseline reports on the Masterplan for Fairlop Waters. The document is a large file and so we are not attaching it but you can download the pdf here: https://drive.google.com/…/1c33njYhhSdbPdPRciA9…/view…

Session 4 of Fairlop Waters Consultation

It became apparent that any drastic measures taken to reduce the traffic/speed on Hainault Road must be seen as part of a bigger review of traffic in the area.
Access only to residents sounds good but how would that be managed?
Closing Painters Road or making it one way would cause lots of distress for local residents.
The AHDA has asked for years to have physical speed reduction measures in Painters Road to make it safer and stop it being used as a rat run.
If you can help influence Redbridge Council to do something that would be very helpful.

Improved access at Barkingside end sounds like a good idea. Not sure if a visitor centre is needed here as this would mean more disruption of green space with buildings, car park etc and also it would be only 10 minutes walk away from the main buildings at the main lake.

Location of open air theatre/events stage.
Why would another Green Belt area need this when there is already a designated area a couple of miles away in Hainault Forest? The proposed site between the main lake and the lagoon would have a disastrous effect on plants/wildlife.
It would mean more noise, disruption, trampling, litter and antisocial behaviour in this area. Totally not necessary here if we are putting nature first!

The proposed barbecue area would be against current Redbridge bylaws which do not allow them in any of the parks for very good reasons including fire risk, littering and antisocial behaviour.

Wild swimming is a crazy idea in any of the water bodies in the park because of the terrible water quality (being man-made on top of one of London’s biggest rubbish dumps with all sorts of pollutants still oozing to the surface) and the disruption to wildlife in these areas.

Another footpath or activities are not need through the Aldborough Hall Nature Reserve, the old gravel Area D. This area has deliberately been restored with limited access to protect the wildlife there, particularly endangered ground nesting birds such as skylarks. There is a perfectly good footpath with viewing points. Please remember this is a nature reserve so nature must come first which will not happen if people are clambering all over it!

Baseline Reports
The reports say that the gravel extraction will be completed in the new areas by 2027 and the first part by 2022. As the work has not even started yet there is very misleading and has to be updated. The last section of gravel extraction in Area D was supposed to take 5 years and ended up taking 12.

Previous Consultations – why has the thoughtful restoration plan proposed by the gravel company in consultation with the local community been largely ignored in the production of the masterplan?

High Ropes Page 64 – I’m not sure where this data came from. I can’t see for example how any revenue can have been generated from the High Ropes as they have not been used for at least 6 years? This failed and costly project is an example of what can happen when they are pushed through with lack of thought and expertise.

Ecological assessment Page 74/152 – The ecological assessment appears to be all desk-based and very out of date. Everything I have heard in these discussions shows the need for a thorough field study with cost-benefit analysis, using experienced experts and listening to and including those with local knowledge of the site. This has to happen before any buildings or activities are approved.

Nature Conservation Page 80 – Emphasises the high value put on Nature Conservation, could you please spend more time explaining this to participants rather that trying to influence the creation of hare-brained schemes such as concert spaces, glamping and barbecues all over the site.

Car Parks Page 105 – mentions the need to reduce the size of car parks. Why then was the illegal one near the main entrance allowed?

Green Belt Page 116 – mentions how inappropriate development on Green Belt land is not allowed. Could you please remind people of this?

Page 150 in the planning documents said there was no evidence to show the Owl’s Play building and the Wedding Marquee had been approved in respect of Green Belt Policy. What is happening about this?

Page 178 Just because other boroughs have over-concreted and messed up their country parks it doesn’t mean we have to! Again I feel this is an attempt to influence the inclusion of high revenue earners in the park, sacrificing the ecological cost.

Jenny Chalmers
BSc Hons, MSc Ecological Science (Edinburgh University)
PGCE Kings CollegeAdvanced Diploma Cambridge University
NPQH Institute of Education
Aldborough Hatch Defence Association

1 thought on “Fairlop Waters Baseline Report – Feedback”

  1. I was part of Fairlop Waters Sailing Club for many years but gave up a couple of years ago when sailing at Fairlop became more stress than relaxation. I have seen FWSC “squeezed” in a manner that would only be perpetrated by an “organisation” that has no understanding of sailing as a leisure pursuit. Good luck.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.