The SUSTRANS ‘Tarkovsky trail’ for sci-fi cyclists & psychogeographers

Rejoice! For the London Borough of Waltham Forest Local Implementation Plan (or LIP) has at last crawled forth into daylight. As yet the council does not seem to have made it available online. But not to worry. You could always try one of the local libraries. Like this Walthamstow blogger:

I asked if I could see “the definitive map and statement for the boroughs public rights of way” (“please”). Both ‘points’ consulted the online oracle and were equally puzzled as to what and where this document is. The librarians suggested I come back and ask some other librarians.

Much more about the LIP shortly. Crack teams of experts here at the Krapp Institute are subjecting the LIP’s stated aim of ‘encouraging cycling’ to rigorous critical scrutiny, and our report will be out in a day or so. Before that we shall expose a Town Hall car dependency scandal. But for today, as a small musical prelude to a thunderous symphony, let us consider section 3.4.7, entitled ‘Greenways and new cycle schemes’.

Waltham Forest’s LIP was developed in consultation with, among other organisations, SUSTRANS. Basically, the Sustrans ‘Olympic Greenways’, which were quietly shelved a couple of years ago, have once again been brought out into daylight, dusted down and reinvented for the LIP.

LIP funding has been obtained for ‘High quality cycle networks’ including ‘Greenways’, offering ‘convenient, predictable and reliable access to local destinations’ (p. 57)

This blog post will deal with one such ‘Greenway’ identified in the LIP, which is to be ‘developed and upgraded’ and which will ‘expand and enhance cycle infrastructure’ in Waltham Forest. And this particular one leads to the Lea Valley, wherein is to be found that distant, legendary Shangri-La known as ‘the Upper Lea Valley Opportunity area’.

But enough talk. Let us begin our epic journey down this Greenway, which is marked on the map on page 58 of the LIP.

In the east, this LIP Greenway begins at the idyllic Crooked Billet underpass (where the North Circular Road meets the A112 and the B179). What local cyclists think of this much-celebrated facility is indicated by the annual cycle counts for the period 2006-2010, which, over the period 7 am-7 pm, on a July day, are 309, 324, 294, 223 and 228. This indicates a trend. Which is a shame as there is so much to see and enjoy at the Crooked Billet. Take this intriguing structure, for example (below). A solitary running shoe amid the detritus in the foreground hints at an untold story. And what lies inside the darkness of those slightly open doors? The entrance to the magical land of Narnia? Or simply a decomposing corpse?





























But now it’s time to set off down the Greenway. The first part of the Greenway runs south of Billet Road on a new cycle path which has previously been celebrated on this blog. (Since that post it's been slightly extended, by the ingenious device of painting a white line down the middle of the relatively narrow pavement.)

Follow it to the end, cross Billet Road – do remember your Green Cross Code as the drivers are going much faster than 30 mph! – and go to the end of the cul de sac to the right of the new Academy (i.e. what used to be known as The McEntee School). You will be greeted by that essential design feature of every exemplar SUSTRANS route – a barrier. But there's access in the mud at the side for cyclists, so not to worry.































Here the route really comes into its own. The suburbs fade and rural life takes over, rich with glimpses of overgrown, derelict buildings, strange motionless horses, and a supermarket cart mysteriously enclosed on all sides by metal fencing. This simply reinforces the general theory that

Tarkovsky’s Stalker seems to be a parable about the London Borough of Waltham Forest. It is set in a wilderness area full of decay, where the normal laws of physics no longer apply.


































At the end of the path you meet another one, entirely lacking in direction signs. But as local psychogeographer and artist Julian Beere observes, this is not all that unusual in the London Borough of Waltham Forest:

Some of the paths appear unsigned, nameless; nowhere between somewhere or other - liminal passages.

In fact you need to turn left here, if you are following the Greenway route, which runs behind the Academy playing fields. As you can see, the width of the path here makes it highly suitable for two-way family leisure cycling shared with dog walkers. Who can doubt that this will become a veritable 'Camel Trail' for North East London?



































Before long you will encounter the delightful entrance to another public footpath, this one leading off south back to Billet Road. Naturally it’s unsigned. If you plan on leaving the Greenway here please note that experience in wading through toilet seats is an advantage.






























And this (below) is where this Greenway route eventually terminates, where it meets the aptly named Folly Lane.

More flytipping (the CCTV stalk nearby has the camera missing) and the entrance is coated in hundreds of tiny pieces of broken glass. This route has been identified by a top man at the London Cycling Campaign as ‘a hidden treasure’, proving once again that the LCC has a shrewd understanding of how to get more people cycling.
































If you don’t fancy returning along the Greenway route there’s an alternative. Overgrown crumbling steps reminiscent of a lost Mayan temple lead mysteriously upward…






























You emerge on to a lush green plateau containing this enigmatic artefact (below). Is it an extra-terrestrial taking a nap or simply her space module?

All I know is that next moment there was a blinding flash and I woke up several hours later to find myself back at the Crooked Billet, with my bike computer mysteriously frozen at the time I left ‘the Tarkovsky trail’.

Incredible but true: Waltham Forest council to gate cycle route

‘Permeability’ is one of the buzzwords in cycling campaign circles. It refers to direct convenient routes for cyclists which incorporate short-cuts unavailable to motor vehicles. Permeability means infrastructure like cycle lanes through road closures, contraflow lanes on one-way streets, or off-road paths which avoid gyratories or other circuitous roads. In Walthamstow a good example of permeability is Clay Path, a pathway where cycling is permitted. Clay Path provides a useful short cut across Lloyd Park, between Winns Terrace E17 in the west and Bedford Road and the A112 in the east. Now read on…































(Above) Clay Path at the Bedford Road end, with the path running west.


Waltham Forest council wants to close Clay Path after dark - that's the path which runs through the middle of Lloyd / Aveling Park, London E17. Close, as in stick a gate at either end and lock it up from as early as 4pm.

• Returning from work after dark? Take the long cut through scenic Forest Road.
• Walking your kids home from Winns Primary / Chapel End school at the end of a long day? The extra exercise is good for kids.
• Collecting children from the Lloyd Park Centre? Push your buggy along the narrow, congested pavement on Forest Road instead. Oh, watch out for those bus stops!
• Cycling through the park after dark? Take your chances in the 4 lanes of traffic on Forest Road instead.
• Walking to work bright and early through the park? They won't be opening it until 7:30am in the morning, or 9:00am on Sunday.

We say: Clay Path is one of the few pedestrian rights of way in Waltham Forest, and we want to improve it, not lose it. You don't have to be a planning genius to release what Clay Path needs is working street lighting, re-surfacing, and widening - not a total shut down after dark. The lottery money awarded to the park surely affords an opportuntity to do something decent, not something stupid.

But with characteristic contempt for walking and cycling Waltham Forest Council is proceeding with its crackpot scheme, once again underlining how things in this borough are comprehensively getting worse and worse for walking and cycling. With typical arrogance the Council hasn’t even bothered to measure use of this pathway by cyclists and pedestrians. It simply doesn’t care. The glaring contradiction with the pious aspirations of its climate change strategy document – essentially a worthless piece of trash – bothers no one. On pages 6 and 7 of the Council's fortnightly newspaper Waltham Forest News there's a lot of guff about the environment and requests for everyone to drive less and walk and cycle more, and then tucked away on page 18 in the 'Public Notices' is the small print:
































Cyclists who once cycled east along Clay Path after work will now have to go on a much longer route, emerging from Winns Terrace on to Forest Road (A503) at the exact spot where a cyclist was run down and killed by a speeding driver. Also bear in mind that in the recent past the Council has turned the roads surrounding the park into one-way streets: Brettenham Road, Carr Road, Winns Terrace, Bedford Road. This was done to maximise car parking and smooth motor vehicle flow. There are no contraflow lanes and the (in)convenience of cyclists was of no interest.

Let’s also consider the role played by the London Cycling Campaign, which on its website trills

Lobbying by Waltham Forest Cycling Campaign (WFCC) is helping to open up Lloyd Park to cyclists.

Waltham Forest Cycling Campaign (WFCC) successfully lobbied to get several paths in the park redesignated as shared use for cyclists and walkers.

The routes include the vital 'Clay Path' through-route, used by cyclists avoiding the perilous Forest Road and the convoluted one-way system to the north of Lloyd Park.

It’s a peculiar claim because Clay Path has always been admissible for cycling, and it’s even more peculiar now that the Council is shutting down night time use of the path. You might hope that the Waltham Forest Cycling Campaign was screaming its head off about this insane plan, and marshalling its claimed 400 members. Instead, not a squeak of protest, and the news section of its website is (with symbolic aptness) pretty vacant. But then I’ve pointed out the dismal failings of LCC campaigners on this route previously.

Let me sum up. A popular route for cyclists and walkers is to be gated and closed down from sunset to the next morning, even though the route is lit by lampposts and has been used by the public for over a century. With characteristic deviousness, the Council used a legal procedure which allowed no appeal to anyone but itself. There was public opposition to the scheme from local residents, which the Council has flippantly disregarded. All this scheme will do is further deter people from walking and cycling and make travel by car more attractive.

Anyone who seriously thinks that cycling in Outer London is going to increase from its dismal modal share of one per cent is delusional. Cycling in an Outer London borough like Waltham Forest is going precisely nowhere, and the increasing inconvenience and danger of cycling locally is likely to result in a reduction in cycling, not an increase. The fact that officers can get away with a scheme like this underlines both the mediocrity of the elected members of the borough and the weakness of supposedly ‘Green’ campaign groups, which continue to collaborate with farces like the Green Fair and Car Free Day, while the cycling and walking environment continues to be degraded, pinched and marginalised.

(Below) The route marked in red, with the Winns Terrace entrance on the left and Bedford Road on the right.


























(Below) Clay Path facing east, outside the nursery.


























(Below) The Council employs the latest in digital technology to announce park closing times:





























(Below) Stolen from cyclists. Bedford Road has been made one-way in this section by the Clay Path entrance (directly ahead) which leads through to Chingford Road (A112). But as any top member of the LCC will tell you, roads like this are just too narrow to provide cycling infrastructure.

Secret public footpaths of Waltham Forest

The council does everything possible to discourage walking by comprehensively neglecting its public footpath network, rarely signing public footpaths, and frequently allowing them to become overgrown and obstructed. This is part of a wider pattern in Waltham Forest:

The general trend in the last few years has been a loss of green spaces and facilities.

This little known public footpath on Chestnut Avenue South is unsigned at either end. The council once tried to shut it down but a local resident objected (it was her walking route to church) and the planning inspector upheld the objection.

The council has never in its history bothered to produce a map of the extensive network of footpaths and short cuts which criss-cross the borough, but then it’s a totally car-centric council obsessed with promoting car dependency.

Rights of way battle

A former royal banker has become embroiled in a battle with villagers over footpaths that once made up part of Geoffrey Chaucer’s Pilgrims’ Way.

The future of the ancient paths is to be decided this week in an inquiry over Timothy Steel's right to close them to the public.

Professor of Law, John Fitzpatrick from the University of Kent’s Law Clinic, which has backed locals in their fight said: 'Legally, to establish these routes as public rights of way one has to show that they have been walked as of right for 20 years - which we believe we have done comprehensively.

scenes from ‘Walk’em Forest’

Yes, it’s that time of the year when Waltham Forest Council urges everyone to leave the car at home and do some walking instead. The latest issue of the Council’s massively expensive propaganda newspaper drops through the Freewheeler letterbox - sadly there’s no mention of the Council getting a mention in the ‘Rotten Boroughs’ section of the new Private Eye. Most of page 6 of Waltham Forest News is devoted to the health benefits of wandering around our walking-friendly borough, which is charmingly dubbed ‘Walk’em Forest’.

How very droll. And now here are some up to the moment pics of walking-friendly Waltham Forest. Why not take a stroll down this public footpath on Heathcote Grove E4, which offers a pleasant and useful short cut to Chingford Avenue. As you can see, the council is passionate about meeting its statutory obligation to keep public footpaths open at all times.













































Or why not take a stroll on one of the borough’s ‘shared use’ pathways. Pedestrians must keep strictly to the right of the white line to avoid collisions with maniac cyclists racing towards them downhill on the pink cycle lane. Marshall Road E10.




























Please remember, however, that the primary function of pavements is to provide parking for those less fortunate than ourselves, who require four rubber wheels and an internal combustion engine to get around. So do take care as you pass these legally parked vehicles on Sturge Avenue E17 and Stanley Road E4.









































To complete your energizing walk, why not finish at Wood Street E17, with its charming footways and delightful shops?

Crap cycling & walking in Hackney

As we enter the cycling paradise that is Hackney see how the lovely pink 'advisory' cycle lane fizzles out. This is if you are travelling south from Waltham Forest along Lea Bridge Road (A104). Commuter cyclists intending to take a route that leads them towards Homerton Hospital or Hackney Town Hall should turn off to the left and follow those faded markings in the foreground. Signing? Of course there isn't any signing. Once you've missed it a few times you'll soon discover this route for yourself.

Hackney? It’s so frabjous for cycling you could almost be in Amsterdam or Copenhagen! Well, that’s what the bloke says in this documentary. In which the LCC's Mr Big, Koy Thompson, also fizzes enthusiastically about permeability. And does his usual thing of explaining how cheap providing for cyclists is. Thanks a million, Koy, because cheap is how I feel, as a cyclist in London.

And here’s more good news!

Thousands of people cycle in Hackney daily, and Hackney not only has the highest percentage of people cycling to work in London out of any London borough (6.83%), but also the UK's largest increase in cycling from 1991-2001 based on a comparison of census data from these years. The latest Transport for London research shows that 8% of all journeys in the borough are by bicycle, which is four times the Greater London average.

Don’t be fooled, dear reader. Hackney is complete crap for cycling in. In fact after an hour cycling around Hackney I started sobbing nostalgically for Waltham Forest. Yes, it’s that bad.

If Hackney is such crap for cycling in, why is modal share so high? Three reasons, I think. Firstly, Hackney is not on the London underground network and overground rail provision is very patchy. There are plenty of buses, but buses are slow. If you want to get into the City or to somewhere like Islington or the West End, cycling is a fast way of getting to your destination. Secondly, Hackney is a poor borough, with traditionally high levels of non-car ownership. A lot of people don’t have the option of driving. Thirdly, Hackney has always been something of a radical centre, and its large population of artists, radicals, and cool young professionals are more amenable as a target group when cycling is marketed as sexy and chic. Especially if they don’t have children in tow.

If you look at who cycles in Hackney it’s by and large people in the age range 25-40, often cycling on their own. You won’t see many elderly cyclists in Hackney. You won’t see many family groups. You won’t see many children, other than the tough kids from the estates, out on their BMXs. You won’t see people riding in clusters or side by side, like in the Netherlands or Sweden. I don't doubt that Victoria is indeed a fairly typical Hackney cyclist. Hackney is for vehicular cyclists only. It's not for ordinary people, in the way that Dutch and Danish cycling is.

Modal share in Hackney is very interesting. For car travel it’s just 19 per cent, reflecting Hackney's traditionally high levels of non-car-ownership. For buses it’s 28 per cent. For rail it’s just 3 per cent. For walking it’s 35 per cent. Yet Hackney Council is profoundly hostile to pedestrians, and is just as keen to transform pavements into parking bays as crap Waltham Forest. Hackney Council is equally hostile to cycling. Its streets have been handed over to a minority of drug addicts hooked on fossil fuels, and Hackney as a whole is choked by the toxic presence of motor vehicles. The cycling infrastructure is a joke. People cycle in Hackney despite the infrastructure, not because of it.

And someone who knows Hackney much better than I do doesn’t fancy cycling:

As a bus addict I'm unlikely to ever switch to two wheels in a big way, but until London's roads feel far less hostile to cyclists I remain reluctant to even sample joining their ranks.

(Below) As you cycle along this recommended and signed cycle route in Hackney which offers a handy short cut via a cycle path across a local park (South Mill Fields) you come to a gate across the road.























(Below) But not to worry! This gate has permeability, in the form of a gap specially for cyclists travelling in both directions!

























(Below) This car is parked perfectly legally. Crap Hackney council hasn't bothered to introduce a double yellow line 'no waiting at any time' waiting restriction. But then Hackney council prizes the car above all other transport modes, and don't let anyone kid you otherwise.






































(Below) This is one of the spanking new road closures off Powerscroft Road E5. And where's the cycle lane? There isn't one. Permeability here means cycling on the pavement round the barrier. Bloody marvellous.
























(Below) When I tried cycling east of Mare Street I quickly became lost in a labyrinth of one-way streets and hideous gyratory systems. This is Brenthouse Road E9. You can see at a glance how this street could be humanised and transformed with segregated cycle paths on the Dutch model. One-way streets and gyratories are symptomatic of councils which have lost the plot and devote their energies to on-street car parking and managing vehicle flow. Hackney is a profoundly anti-cycling local authority and by obscuring this reality the LCC is part of the problem and an organisation which is helping to suppress cycling, not expand it.

























(Below) Hackney, like Waltham Forest, promotes car dependency and seizes pavements and turns them into car parks. This vehicle is parked perfectly legally, with faded markings on the footway designating the parking area. No council which was remotely Green would allow parking on a pavement this narrow, or indeed on any pavement.




























(Below) In Hackney only one driver gave me grief that day. The psycho driver of this NE London Dial-a-Ride van, reg T402 KLE. I was coming up to the end of a traffic jam when psycho couldn't resist overtaking me with half an inch to spare, then cutting in ahead of me and braking. The sort of pathological oaf who has to get past a cyclist, no matter what the circumstances. I used my native fieldcraft to get ahead of the queue and I was well on my way when a couple of minutes later a large chunk of metal manifested itself half an inch from my right handlebar. It was the Dial-a -Ride psycho again, overtaking me perilously close. This driver is plainly unfit to drive on roads which contain cyclists, and is the kind of murderous risk-taker that London's roads are full of.
























(Below) On the way back to wunnerful Waltham Forest I decided to check out this dedicated walkway/cyclepath which runs along the south bank of the River Lea from South Mill Fields to the Cow Bridge. There is, of course, no signing of this leisure route.

I discovered it had fencing across the entrance to it. No notice explaining what was going on. I squeezed through the gap and carried on to Cow Bridge, where the other entrance had been fenced off. The cycle lane was obscured by vegetation along the entire length. What is going on? What is going on is that Hackney is complete crap for walking and cycling. End of.

The Bellevue Road Area E17 ‘improvements’

(Above) A windy day on pedestrian-unfriendly Carnanton Road E17. All photos taken yesterday.

The London Borough of Waltham Forest’s ‘Environment & Regeneration’ section, under the underperforming and ludicrously overpaid Martin Esom, is a cancer on the body politic of the borough. It is aggressively pursuing a policy of creating more and more free parking spaces in residential areas, which is madness in itself. What is even worse is that these spaces are being created at the expense of cyclists and pedestrians.

It is unbelievable that in London in the year 2009 road space is being re-allocated from pedestrians and cyclists for car parking, and yet that is what is happening under the borough’s five ‘improvement schemes’. This is dragging us backwards, not taking us forwards. It also makes it very, very difficult ever to create in the future the kind of infrastructure which David Hembrow describes on his blog. Likewise, at this rate London is never going to provide an infrastructure like Copenhagen's. There is simply no such vision on the part of either transport planners or politicians in any of the three main parties; at best, cyclists are given low-cost, fragmentary, piecemeal provision.

Jack of The Bike Show:

When I asked Klaus Bondam, the Mayor of Copenhagen, what was the most difficult but most important decision he has made to make Copenhagen cycle friendly he gave a clear answer: replacing car parking space with spacious, segregated cycle lanes.

The tragedy in the London Borough of Waltham Forest is that even where space currently exists which would allow for the creation of such cycle lanes without upsetting car owners, it is even now about to be seized for car parking.

I have previously analysed The Forest Road Corridor Scheme and The Wood Street Corridor Scheme, today let me draw attention to the Bellevue Road Area E17 ‘improvements’. This area is a grid of streets locally known as Upper Walthamstow, forming a rectangle bordered by Forest Road in the south, Pentire Road E17 in the north, Beacontree Avenue in the east, and Hale End Road in the west.

The major impact of the proposed ‘improvements’ will fall on Carnanton Road, Grantock Road and Beacontree Avenue. On the first two streets existing footway parking bays will be altered but it is hard to assess the significance of this as no measurements are supplied and the plan provides no ‘before’ and ‘after’ comparisons, except for Beacontree Avenue.

The striking thing about the first two streets is not just how footway parking degrades the walking environment and results in obstruction, but how many of the houses possess off-street parking. There is no ‘need’ for footway parking at all. Supplying it simply encourages single household multiple vehicle ownership.

Between Grantock Road and Carnanton Road there are two public footpaths. I only checked out one and it was unlawfully obstructed. The body responsible for maintaining it is, needless to say, the London Borough of Waltham Forest, which has repeatedly displayed its contemptuous indifference to maintaining its public footpath network, signing it, or encouraging use of it. Walking simply isn’t important to Martin Esom and his car-crazed officers.

Worst of all is what is proposed for Beacontree Avenue E17. Here, the existing narrow pavement on the eastern side will be stolen for car parking. The Council’s consultation document claims ‘there will be no loss of footway space as the proposals will be achieved by building out the kerb line’. That pious claim is totally at variance with the plan, which indicates the effective loss of this pavement (see below). Ironically, although in The Forest Road Corridor scheme it is claimed that narrowing the road will magically reduce traffic speeds, on Beacontree Avenue the narrowing of the road will include the introduction of chicanes to reduce speed.

Needless to say, no research whatsoever has been carried out into cycle flow in this area, even though cyclists use these streets to travel from Highams Park/Hale End Road to access Woodford New Road and Woodford. The scope for segregated cycle lanes on the Dutch/Copenhagen model is obvious, and yet instead road space is being re-allocated for car parking bays, promoting multiple car ownership and yet greater car dependency and use. Narrowing the road and forcing cyclists to pedal between rows of parked cars and in close proximity to moving vehicles is unlikely to result in significant numbers of non-cycling Londoners taking up cycling.

The other day, referring to the implications of a major decline in the world’s supplies of oil, George Monbiot said I'm beginning to feel like a madman with a sandwich board

I know the feeling, George. Here in the London Borough of Waltham Forest the madmen have taken over the asylum, and it’s cars, cars, cars and car dependency that are the future, not pleasant, safe streets for walking and cycling.

(Below) Carnanton Road, where houses have off-street parking. There are also garages between Carnanton Road and Grantock Road.


















(Below) Grantock Road, where houses have off-street parking.























(below) The obstructed public footpath between Grantock Road and Carnanton Road.






























(Below) The east side of Bellevue Road, to be re-allocated for on-pavement parking bays. This is the area at the top of the plan, with the camera at the top far left, looking right. The pavement extension is marked in green, with the new parking bays marked out in hatched blue lines.

Last Chance Saloon

If you live in the London Borough of Waltham Forest, this is your last chance to register an objection to the Council’s proposal to divert this public footpath. The deadline for objections is 7 July.

Waltham Forest Council breaks the law

'Public Footpath'

The Highway Authority has a legal duty to assert and protect the rights of the public to use Public Rights of Way's (PROWs) and also to prevent their obstruction. An unauthorised obstruction may render those liable to criminal prosecution and fines.

A Council has a duty to assert and protect the rights of the public to the use and enjoyment of any highway (including Public Rights of way). A Council is obliged to keep rights of way open and useable.

Waltham Forest Council should prosecute itself for allowing the wilful obstruction of its public footpath network through gross neglect.

The above public footpath, completely impassable, runs between Heathcote Grove E4 and Chingford Avenue. The Council is shamelessly indifferent to its legal obligation to maintain its public footpath network and generally regards public footpaths and rights of way as a nuisance and a waste of money.

And if you haven’t already done so, please send a quick email and, before it's too late, register an objection to the Council’s attempt to divert a public footpath for a property development.

Please register an objection to the diversion of this footpath

Last year the Council tried to close this public footpath off Wyemead Crescent E4 (shown above). This was pretty much business as usual for a Council which fairly regularly seeks to shut down public footpaths without ever bothering to find out how many people use them or with what frequency. Not only was the Council indifferent to those using this pathway, it had never even bothered to sign it as a public footpath

As far as its public footpath network is concerned the London Borough of Waltham Forest has an atrocious record. It has previously demonstrated a cavalier attitude to its legal obligations under The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 and has long been blatantly indifferent to its legal obligation to maintain access on public footpaths

In the face of objections from local residents the Council backed down. Instead of putting its case before the Planning Inspectorate it abandoned its proposal. Presumably it felt it might well lose. Hence this announcement, tucked away in the small print of wfm,8 June, p. 12.








But, like the Terminator, the Council never gives up. It is now back with a new proposal to divert this footpath. The reasons for its zeal are not hard to seek. This particular site was once a children’s playground. The Council let it go to wrack and ruin. Instead of cherishing this green site and the public footpath which runs across it, the Council would prefer to forget about it and hand it over for development. This is happening on a much bigger scale with the controversial proposed development of Leyton County cricket ground. Interestingly a letter in this week’s Waltham Forest Guardian says ‘The rumour is that the Council has decided to build a large housing estate on Chestnut Fields’ – another, much larger green site. It’s a rumour which is entirely credible. All these developments of green sites form part of a wider pattern.

The Council gave planning permission for a development here on Wyemead Crescent in 2006, granting it to ‘The Christian Action (Enfield) Housing Association Limited’. Although there is no reason to believe this will happen in this case, it is worth bearing in mind that the last time the Council granted planning permission for a development and gave away public land to a housing association, the association subsequently decided not to build on the land and proceeded to put it up for sale. In a serious economic recession the viability of any new building development is open to scrutiny.

The Council did not consider the reality of the public footpath which runs across the site until 2008, when it suddenly proposed closing it. Now, three years after granting planning permission, and having given up on shutting the path down, it is proposing the diversion. Some Wyemead Crescent residents are understandably fed up with the Council’s inertia over this site, which they say is a focal point of anti-social behaviour. However, that is not a reason for being bounced into accepting the diversion. The Council should have considered the implications of the footpath before granting planning permission; having granted it, it was entirely the Council’s decision to delay matters.

The proposed diversion is as shown below.




























The photograph below shows the current route of a section of the path, as it currently runs in a straight line between the letters B and C on the plan above. As can be seen, this existing route links directly and conveniently with the footway on Coney Burrows in the distance (which leads directly on to Whitehall Road).























The problem with the proposed diversion is that it changes a direct public footpath across open land into a longer, less direct and much more unattractive route. Personal security is also plainly an issue, as anyone using the path will evidently in future be hidden from view for parts of the route. Anyone who uses this route as a short cut between Whitehall Road and Normanton Park will likely be deterred from doing so in future. The proposed diversionary route is longer and also does not emerge opposite Coney Burrows, as the existing path does (which is the obvious route for anyone using this path as a short cut).

If you live in the London Borough of Waltham Forest, please register an objection to ‘The Waltham Forest (Wyemead Crescent) (Public Path Diversion) Order 2009’. A simple statement to the effect that the proposed diversion is unacceptable because it replaces a direct and open public footpath with a longer and more unattractive route is sufficient. You need to include your name and address. You can email your objection to hazel.game@projectcentre.co.uk or send it in writing to Ms. Game at The Project Centre, Saffron Court, 14b Cross Street, London EC1N 8XA.

The full Diversion order is published on page 12 of wfm, 8 June.

In the face of unwithdrawn objections the Council has, I believe, two options. It can order a full public inquiry or it can invite objectors to accept the judgement of the Planning Inspectorate. This second option offers the swiftest and most acceptable resolution in a case of this sort. The Inspectorate sends an inspector to visit the site. The inspector considers the Council’s case for diverting the path, and the arguments of objectors for retaining the existing public footpath route. A judgement binding on all parties is then announced.

There is certainly nothing to be lost by registering an objection. If objections are upheld, then the Council will then be obliged to rethink its attitude to this green site. Returning it to its former status as a children’s play area might not be a bad idea.

A neglected greenway network

While Sustrans touts the idea of an Olympic Greenways network, the London Borough of Waltham Forest already has an existing network of 'greenways'. They are called public footpaths and public rights of way. They are often not signed, and where they are signed no destinations are given. Many of them are in a neglected state, sometimes completely obstructed. And the Council has no map which members of the public can consult, showing the location of the Borough's footpaths and rights of way. Nor does it publish free maps of the Borough showing the whereabouts of these walking routes. A very basic resource is completely marginalised. Which is why I laugh hollowly at 'Car Free Days' and 'Green Fairs', where council staff hand out bland leaflets urging everyone to walk.

(Below) After this overgrown public footpath leading between Moreland Way E4 and Chingford Avenue was featured on this blog, the Council had it cleared of all the undergrowth which was obstructing it. But now it is returning to its old state, with added obstructions.


















(Below) The exit/entrance to the footpath on Chingford Avenue E4 is also overgrown and neglected.


















(Below) The public footpath on Wyemead Crescent E4. This was unlawfully fenced off by the Council, which failed to publish a legally valid temporary closure order before blocking access. The footpath has now been re-opened. The Council sought to extinguish this right of way but in the face of objections has now withdrawn its proposal. Evidently someone was not confident that the Planning Inspectorate would side with the Council and over-rule objections. The Council now says that it intends to divert the footpath instead, in order to allow a planning development. However, no diversion order has yet been published. Well done everyone who lodged an objection.