From Save our Green Spaces - Hainault Community Group

 From our friends at 'Save our Green Spaces - Hainault Community Group (Facebook):

"This is the next big fight that we will have to undertake against Redbridge Council and their constant desire to destroying green spaces. Picture 1 shows Barking and Dagenham Marks Gate A12 green space development. Phase 1 in Orange, phase 2 in Blue. Phase 1 takes in the reconstruction of the Padnell lake. This will total 250 new houses at 8 storeys tall. Picture 2 shows Redbridge land grab which includes West Ham United training ground in Yellow. Orange sees the old landfill contaminated land which had it's green belt status taken away. Blue sees what is rumoured to include Little Heath school being totally demolished and moved. Total over 1000 houses. Picture 3 shows Green belt recreation ground which was decommissioned by Redbridge to allow it to be built on. Picture 4 Orange shows Oakfields playing ground, Bealonians ground which is being offered to West Ham United as part of the deal for them to leave Little Heath. This could also incorporate that in Blue the land of Old Parkonians ground as well. So this site will be completely lost to the residents as this would become exclusive use by West Ham United football club. Old Parkonians was founded in 1902 and the cricket team then founded in 1906, Old Bealonians was then founded in 1936, it is the largest club in the area. The site also incorporates the Jack Carter pavillion which would also be lost for public use so this is such a bitter bitter blow for Oakfields playing fields. Now it's becoming clearer why Redbridge council want to review their green belt policy later this year instead of 2030."

New homes on green spaces will be massive LOSS for Marks Gate

Befirst say: “In addition to the new homes the development will provide a brand new park, orchards and improved access to a lake which will provide a green open space residents can enjoy.”

Lets look at this in more detail ..... by superimposing the plan on the existing green space

Firstly there will be double the amount of homes / families with half as much green space, that's without including residents of all the homes north of the Padnall Road who use this as their local park.

Will this still work as a family friendly park?

The park area is massively reduced, children can play along side the 'new' car park or directly in front of the existing residents' homes, or just walk up and down a path.

Where do the kids learn to ride a bike? on the narrow path? Where are the cycle paths?

Where do the kids play football? on the small area in front of the existing blocks?

The summer picnics the community used to hold on the green space, the swimming pools in front of all the blocks, something Marks Gate is known for, where will they go ..

It will no longer be a family friendly park but just a path ... parks do not tend to have access roads and car parks down them. 

And then there is the wasted space, the space behind the 6 storey block on the left, or the narrow space in front of it. The tiny buffer space behind the new houses along the A12.

Any sensible reason for the car parks not being behind the new homes and alongside the A12? keep all the pollution together and not on the 'park'?

Is there really a need for a 6 storey block right next to the lake? 

Improved Access to the lake they say - well its a path, same as it was before, a path,  just not with as much green space either side of it.

New park, they say - no park we say.

Padnall Lake and Green Space Biodiversity debate from 73.84% to 530% - is it true?

This is what BeFirst Planning Officer told the Planning Committee:

"The proposed development seeks to be built on open space nevertheless there will be a 513% increase in biodiverse planting which contributes to the urban greening factor of 0.6 which comfortably exceeds the guidance set out by the London Plan" (1.138)

This is what they told The Mayor of London /GLA:

"The proposal would provide significant landscaping and biodiversity benefits. There would be a 530% increase in biodiverse planting on the site" (item 27) 

But what did the actual Biodiversity Report say?

"The Biodiversity Net Gain assessment shows that with the current proposed landscape design, it is possible for the proposed development to achieve a 73.84 % net gain for area-based habitats, a 24.05% increase for linear habitats and a 0.33 hectare increase for trees." 

So the Aug 2020 Biodiversity Report said 73.84% increase, the report to The Mayor of London Oct 2020 says 530% increase, the report to the Planning Committee Nov 2020 says 513%.

When does the amount go down to the original 73.84% ? 

Next we will look at how they say they will make the increase, not sure whether that's the 73.84% or the 513% increase or even the 530% increase or none!

Redbridge accused of keeping Marks Gate residents in the dark

Redbridge accused of keeping Marks Gate residents in the dark about Billet Road site development.

According to the article in Barking & Dagenham Post Jon Cruddas MP wrote to the (Redbridge) authority’s housing chief after people in Coral Close and Uplands Road in Marks Gate raised concerns over a series of issues during work in nearby Billet Road, Aldborough Hatch.

The MP for Dagenham and Rainham has urged Redbridge Council not to leave neighbours “in the dark” over building work on green belt land.

As the local residents know, this is totally accurate. None of the LBBD residents were informed by Redbridge or the site owners that these works were to be carried out nor have they been told what and when to expect any further developments.

They have also not been told that this is contaminated land due to the unlicensed tip there in the 1970's and what precautions should have been taken while they dug up the land, none were. 

Should any LBBD residents decide to look at Redbridge planning (why would they?) they would see the planning application for the hoarding fence  but as the site is adjacent to LBBD residents in Billet Road, Rowan Way, Coral Close, Uplands Road, Hope Close and a short distance from Kallar Lodge Residential Care Home they should have all been informed.

Not only about the work on the site but also its removal from Green Belt by Redbridge despite the Mayor of London refusing this request.

Gold Rush: Developer, Redbridge family and football tycoon in scrap over former rubbish tip that could soon be worth £10million. 

LOCAL AUTHORITIES ARE URGED TO PROTECT GREEN SPACES TO MITIGATE CLIMATE CHANGE

NEWS RELEASE
1st July 2019: Release time immediate

LOCAL AUTHORITIES ARE URGED TO PROTECT GREEN SPACES TO MITIGATE CLIMATE CHANGE

Local authorities in London and the Home Counties which have declared a 'Climate Emergency' in their districts, and which propose to adopt strategies and action plans to tackle climate change, are being urged to include policies of stronger protection for green spaces in their plans, as these provide vital climate change mitigation.

The London Green Belt Council (LGBC), which represents over 100 environmental and community groups across the region, warns that some local councils are being inconsistent by declaring a Climate Emergency but failing to prevent development on Green Belt countryside and open spaces which provide vital mitigation for climate change. Some of these local authorities are even putting forward large swathes of Green Belt land for housebuilding despite their professed commitment to environmental protection.

LGBC Chair Richard Knox-Johnston says: "The Green Belt is a vital green lung for people in London and the wider South East. By protecting green spaces it is making a hugely important contribution to people's health and well-being as well as maintaining essential eco-systems and providing wildlife corridors.

"Green spaces help to mitigate climate change because carbon is absorbed by vegetation and held long-term in soils emissions. They also help us adapt to climate change by absorbing rainwater and cooling our towns and cities. The more green space we lose, the more we are at risk from flooding and rising temperatures, two of the predicted effects of climate change.

"District and borough councils are absolutely right to recognise the seriousness of climate change and to acknowledge the role that local government can play in tackling the climate crisis, but if they do not also pledge to defend the Green Belt and countryside from development then they are failing in their duty to protect our communities and environment."

The LGBC is calling on all local authorities to state categorically that climate change mitigation requires the protection of Green Belt countryside and open spaces, and to agree to block developers' proposals for building on Green Belt land. This is especially important, the LGBC points out, at a time when London itself needs to become more resilient to climate emergencies which means it needs to have plenty of green spaces around it.

Mr Knox-Johnston adds: "Giving up Green Belt to development is an easy answer to the housing shortage but actually it does nothing to improve the affordability of housing - all it does is leave communities with less greenspace. In fact, there has never been a greater need to protect the Green Belt from development."

The LGBC is currently working with a wide range of partner organisations to produce a consultation paper setting out "A Vision for the Future of London's Green Belt". This emphasises the Green Belt's value for health and well-being, biodiversity and environmental sustainability, and its crucial importance to the fight against climate change.

For further information on the work of the LGBC, go to

LONDONGREENBELTCOUNCIL.ORG.UK

London Green Belt Council – protecting London's Green Belt

About us The London Green Belt Council brings together over 100 organisations including councils, residents & environmental groups with a shared concern for London's Green Belt. The Council meets three times a year in Parliament. There is an executive committee which meets more frequently. We also p...

Aecom & London Borough of Redbridge

Letter from Aecom to Redbridge

In December 2014, we submitted representations to the Preferred Options Report Extension consultation on behalf of East Thames under the name of URS, our legacy company. This presented a comprehensive case for de-allocating the land south of Billet Road from the Green Belt. 

We submitted further representations in July 2016 to the Local Plan Review 2015-2030: Pre-Submission Draft consultation. This supported the objectives of the pre-submission draft.

The Council’s proposed housing supply is mainly brownfield, these opportunities may be less deliverable than the larger greenfield sites as they are small, fragmented, in multiple ownerships, and tend to have relatively more physical constraints.

 So that says it all, there is brownfield but it may be less deliverable - does that translate as more expensive?

Aecom article 'Optimising build to rent returns'  probably explains their great interest in the Billet Road site 99. But what does it mean to those living in London Borough of Redbridge and wanting homes? Will they be able to afford any? will they all be sold to 'investors'?

East Thames Housing Association Design requirements

URS Representations on behalf of East Thames Group

Hedge Height decides Green Belt de-designation Billet Road

Developers Aecom claimed 'a number of high hedges served to completely isolate the Billet Road land (site 99) from the rest of Fairlop green belt.'

Not a very high hedge ...  isolate? really?

The Hedge - Billet Road Google Map

Site 99 clearly part of Fairlop Plain

 

Green Belt Removal - Mental Health implications review

Replacing Greenbelt Land with Social Housing and Commercial Markets: A brief review of mental health implications

Compiled April 2019, by Adam Laws, BSc. Psychology (Hons.)
MSc. Clinical Psychology and Mental Health Student at the University of Sussex
Please request authors’ permission to edit or reproduce this review (via this blog).

Mental health problems and psychiatric disorders remain a leading cause of global burden, accounting for a large portion of the world’s years lived with disability (Becker & Kleinman, 2013; Vigo, Thornicroft & Atun, 2016). Thus, it is essential that steps are taken to reduce the likelihood of the development of such problems and disorders.

This brief review presents recent evidence dictating that the shifting of greenbelt land into more urbanised housing, schools and markets would negatively impact on the mental health outcomes of residents, particularly children and adolescents.

Benefits of Green Space: Mental Health Outcomes and Health Behaviours

Initially, research failed to identify a mechanism to explain the association between growing up in urban areas and poorer mental health outcomes, though the relationship is well-evidenced (Engemann et al., 2019). However, recent studies have identified that this association may be explained by the lack of green space in urban areas. Following a systematic review, Vanaken and Danckaerts (2018) concluded that local green space exposure is key to protecting the mental health and wellbeing of children and adolescents. Particularly, this relationship was prominent in the development of emotional and behavioural problems including hyperactivity and inattention problems, linked to attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD; American Psychiatric Association, 2013) and several other psychiatric problems (Rajendran, Oneill & Halperin, 2013). A protective role was also identified for depressive symptoms.

Further, Barton and Mitchell (2017) observed that greenspaces are associated with reduced anxiety, mental distress and depression, and that greenspaces reduce the impact of life stresses on wellbeing. Most research found that these relationships existed even when other confounding variables, including parental mental health, socioeconomic status and other measures of urbanisation (Vanaken & Danckaerts, 2018; Engemann et al., 2019). Bondo (2019) highlights that mental health benefits of even low level greenspace exposure extend from childhood well into adulthood.

Additionally, increased greenspace availability is closely linked to increased physical activity (Barton, 2016), recommended by both the NHS (2018) and NICE (2019) for improving mental wellbeing both in presence and absence of mental health problems. Mitchell (2013) found that those who use greenspaces for physical activity at least once per week have only half the risk of poor mental health, with further reductions seen with greater weekly usage.

Impacts of Noise Pollution: Mental Health and Cognitive Ability

The construction of houses and maintenance of wholesale markets is likely to involve a large amount of noise pollution at varying times of the day. Dzhambov et al. (2017) highlight the contribution of increases in residential noise levels to residents’ mental health. The authors found that daytime noise pollution predicted higher levels of annoyance, sleep disturbance and reduced physical activity, all of which in turn predicted poorer mental health outcomes on the widely-used General Health Questionnaire (GHQ). Mental health outcomes measured included both anxiety and depression. Ma et al. (2018) expand on this, concluding that noise pollution predicts fatigue, stress, anxiety, sleep disturbance and headaches, regardless of participants’ social environments. Indeed, housing satisfaction was directly correlated with perceived stress and levels of anxiety.

Makopa, Agoub and Ahami (2014) demonstrate an impact of residential noise on the cognitive functioning of residents. The authors found that noise disturbs memory, distracts attention and produces poorer performance in cognitive tasks. Epidemiological studies reviewed by the authors suggested that students in schools located in noisy areas are more likely to present cognitive impairment.

Traffic and Commuting

With the increased public attention and attendance associated with commercial markets, as well as schools, traffic is an inevitable and potentially harmful burden. Research, for a number of years, has shown that increased commuting and travel times is linked to poorer mental health. Stutzer and Frey (2008) report reduced subjective wellbeing in those with longer commutes and long commutes are linked to reduced health satisfaction, causing more frequent visits to general practitioners (Künn-Nelen, 2015). Feng and Boyle (2013) reiterate that long journeys are a stressful event for many and long-term impacts on wellbeing are observed, primarily in women and children.

Conclusion

This brief review outlines the several ways in which replacing greenbelt land with commercial markets, social housing and schools may impact residents’ mental health. Primarily, these impacts are seen as a direct result of removing greenbelt land, which has well-evidenced mental health benefits. However, there are also mental health implications which stem from the practical elements of these changes, including noise pollution and increased commuting time.

References:

Barton, J. (2016). Green exercise linking nature, health and well-being. London: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, Earthscan from Routledge.

Barton, J., & Rogerson, M. (2017). The importance of greenspace for mental health. BJPsych. International, 14(4), 79-81. doi:10.1192/s2056474000002051

Becker, A. E., & Kleinman, A. (2013). Mental Health and the Global Agenda. New England Journal of Medicine, 369(1), 66-73. doi:10.1056/nejmra1110827

Bondo, P. (2019). Being surrounded by green space in childhood may improve mental health of adults. Retrieved April 8, 2019, from http://scitech.au.dk/en/about-science-and-technology/current-affairs/news/show/artikel/being-surrounded-by-green-space-in-childhood-may-improve-mental-health-of-adults/

Dzhambov, A. M., Markevych, I., Tilov, B., Arabadzhiev, Z., Stoyanov, D., Gatseva, P., & Dimitrova, D. D. (2018). Pathways linking residential noise and air pollution to mental ill-health in young adults. Environmental Research, 166, 458-465. doi:10.1016/j.envres.2018.06.031

Engemann, K., Pedersen, C. B., Arge, L., Tsirogiannis, C., Mortensen, P. B., & Svenning, J. (2019). Residential green space in childhood is associated with lower risk of psychiatric disorders from adolescence into adulthood. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(11), 5188-5193. doi:10.1073/pnas.1807504116

Feng, Z., & Boyle, P. (2013). Do Long Journeys to Work Have Adverse Effects on Mental Health? Environment and Behavior, 46(5), 609-625. doi:10.1177/0013916512472053

Künn-Nelen, A. (2015). Does Commuting Affect Health? Health Economics, 25(8), 984-1004. doi:10.1002/hec.3199

Ma, J., Li, C., Kwan, M., & Chai, Y. (2018). A Multilevel Analysis of Perceived Noise Pollution, Geographic Contexts and Mental Health in Beijing. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 15(7), 1479. doi:10.3390/ijerph15071479

Makopa, I. K., Agoub, M., & Ahami, A. O. (2014). Noise Effects on Mental Health: a review of literature. Sante mentale au Quebec, 39(2), 169-181.

Mitchell, R. (2013). Is physical activity in natural environments better for mental health than physical activity in other environments? Social Science & Medicine, 91, 130-134. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.04.012

NHS. (2018). Get active for mental wellbeing. Retrieved April 8, 2019, from https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/stress-anxiety-depression/mental-benefits-of-exercise/

NICE. (2019). Mental health and wellbeing. Retrieved April 8, 2019, from https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/lifestyle-and-wellbeing/mental-health-and-wellbeing

Rajendran, K., Oneill, S., & Halperin, J. M. (2013). Inattention Symptoms Predict Level of Depression in Early Childhood. Postgraduate Medicine, 125(1), 154-161. doi:10.3810/pgm.2013.01.2630

Stutzer, A., & Frey, B. S. (2008). Stress that Doesnt Pay: The Commuting Paradox*. Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 110(2), 339-366. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9442.2008.00542.x

Vanaken, G., & Danckaerts, M. (2018). Impact of Green Space Exposure on Children’s and Adolescents’ Mental Health: A Systematic Review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 15(12), 2668. doi:10.3390/ijerph15122668

Vigo, D., Thornicroft, G., & Atun, R. (2016). Estimating the true global burden of mental illness. The Lancet Psychiatry, 3(2), 171-178. doi:10.1016/s2215-0366(15)00505-2