June 2016



The Aldborough Hatch Defence Association (AHDA), representing residents in the area of Aldborough Hatch, submits the following objections to the above planning application.

These objections were tabled at a Public Meeting held at St. Peter’s Church Halls on Thursday 2nd June 2016 attended by 84 members of the Association and residents of Aldborough Hatch who endorsed the objections in their entirety.

We object to the planning application in its entirety on the following grounds:

1. The proposal will isolate Aldborough Hatch Farm from the local community, whose members enjoy and participate in the leisure activities this Green Belt space affords: walking/dog walking, cycling, horse-riding, wildlife watching and enjoyment of the open countryside.

2. The application will generate noise, dust and pollution during mineral extraction. The applicant also proposes that pumping will be in operation 24/7 for levelling the water table on the actual site. The noise and possibly vibration of this continuous pumping will disturb not only local residents but the Busy Bodies Pre-School Nursery which operates five days a week from St Peter’s Church Halls. Community groups using the halls and the church itself will be disturbed and ‘competing’ with the noise throughout the week.

3. Due to the close proximity - 50 metres - of the extraction site to the St. Peter’s Church Halls, there will be an adverse effect on the education and health of the 65 children attending Busy Bodies Pre-School Nursery, which meets on weekdays during term time on five mornings and four afternoons. Five of the children have asthma, three have Special Education Needs, ten have language and speech difficulties and three have glue ear; all of these children are given extra assistance by Redbridge Council’s Children’s Services.

4. In reference to (3) above, we would draw your attention to the Borough’s Mineral Local Plan adopted in September 2012, in particular, Policy M1. Section 5.2.1* and 5.2.2** , the summary of which is: ‘The assessment of any application for minerals development would need to carefully consider the likely impact on the children of noise, particulate emissions and airborne dust, since some of them suffer from hearing and respiratory conditions. Unless the Council was fully satisfied in relation to such issues it would refuse the application’. Some 47% of the children attending the Pre-School Nursery suffer from audio and respiratory conditions. Given the close proximity to the excavation site, we ask the Committee to consider very seriously the impact on those children and to reject the application.

5. The proposed ‘stand-off’, given as 100 metres, between the excavation site and St Peter’s Church is not acceptable. St Peter’s Church is a Grade II Listed Building, consecrated in 1862. It was built to the standards of the time and therefore has no foundations.

Some 30 years ago extensive work had to be completed as the external walls of the church started to move inwards, necessitating the installation of metal tie bars at roof level.

There were concerns at the time, as now, that the changes in the water table caused by sand and gravel excavation on Fairlop Plain contributed to this movement in the walls. At the same time, a number of gravestones started to move or collapse. There is deep concern from the local community that if this application is approved, this ‘movement’ will continue and that those buried, will not ‘Rest In Peace’.

We request that should this application be approved that a stand-off between St Peter’s Church and the site be 200 metres, and that a system of regular (monthly) monitoring of the Church is adopted and shared with the Incumbent, Churchwardens, Parochial Church Council, the Diocese of Chelmsford together with the Crown Office at 10 Downing Street (the church being a Crown Living).

We further request that conditions regarding assessment and monitoring are inserted in the planning application for the Grade II Listed Buildings of St. Peter’s Church and the Aldborough Hatch Chapel, together with the locally Listed Barns on Aldborough Hatch Farm and Rose Cottage on Hainault Farm.

6. Details of the haul road to be constructed from Bridleway 94 to the conveyor belt in Painters Road do not extend to how lorries will use this road and the times of usage. No details are given as to the prevention or dealing with dust/debris, despite comment made by Smith Grant LLP in the air quality assessment 6.3.6 to 6.3.9. There are no details as to safety measures for traffic, both vehicle and pedestrian movements. The Permissive Footpath from Painters Road is used by walkers, cyclists and schoolchildren to access the leisure activities at Fairlop Waters. We request that stringent conditions are applied to the surface of the haul road so that this will not throw up dust to the detriment of those using the golf course, the bridleway and footpath, and the Equestrian Centre.

We request that a condition is included to the effect that all open backed vehicles travelling on the haul road are fully sheeted. Further, we request that a condition is included to the effect that adequate safety measures (such as traffic lights or a manned crossing) are installed at the junction of the haul road and the permissive footpath from Painters Road to Fairlop Waters.

7. The application proposes that Bridleway 94 is diverted, adding some 600 metres to the distance pedestrians and cyclists travel. The proposed three metre wide diverted route runs west behind a high hedge on Oaks Lane before turning north where it will run between hedgerows and the three metres high bund and re-joining Bridleway 94 at the Southern side of Fairlop Waters. There has been no risk assessment carried out by the applicant or Police and in view of the history of the area where there has been a murder and four serious sexual assaults, it is felt therefore that the long ‘tunnel effect’ on this diverted bridleway is unacceptable. We also do not believe that cutting back shrubs and installing extra lighting and LBR-monitored CCTV cameras, as was previously implemented along Footpath 97, will be of any benefit in this instance. Security is paramount for the safety of both adults and children using the Bridleway.

8. The applicant has stated that that this proposal will take approximately eight to nine years. Given that there have been numerous extensions of time to Area D, which now means that works have continued for 14 years, rather than the originally-proposed six, the local community has no faith in the undertakings given by this applicant as clearly they have no concept of time scale.

Restoration of Area D is currently due to be completed by 31st December 2016 (application 4179/14), but the applicant now seeks to further overthrow this as they have requested retention of the land bordering Painters Road until completion of this proposal. This is totally unacceptable, as it would mean that Area D will have been taken away from the local community for over 23 years, and the long promised nature reserve on this FULL site will, yet again, not be forthcoming, so we respectfully request that this section of the planning application is refused for this reason.

9. We object to the sand and gravel extraction on Area F at Hainault Farm. This is far too close to residential properties where a stand-off at least 150metres should be imposed taking into account the cottages on Hainault Road and Hainault Farmhouse.

* 5.2.1 Policy M1 establishes a general presumption in favour of minerals development on Preferred Areas of Extraction and in Minerals Search Areas (subject to exploratory testing demonstrating a viable resource). However, before granting planning permission, the Council needs to be satisfied that operations will be carried out in an environmentally acceptable and sustainable manner and that the interests and amenity of occupiers of the land and neighbouring properties are protected.

** 5.2.2 For instance, the Willow Farm site (site 6, MSA B) is close to Little Heath School, a special needs school for children with a wide range of disabilities. The assessment of any application for minerals development would need to carefully consider the likely impact on the children of noise, particulate emissions and airborne dust, since some of them suffer from hearing and respiratory conditions. Unless the Council was fully satisfied in relation to such issues it would refuse the application.

You can download a copy of the above objections in PDF form from here.

If you wish to submit you own objection, please, please do so!

Further reading:
• Brett Tarmac Planning Application to Redbridge Council - May 2016
• Planning Application Documents ZIP File (Warning Very Large File!)
Brett Tarmac – Fairlop Quarry Plans Microsite
• Ilford Recorder Letters Page - 26th May 2016
• Ilford Recorder Letter - 26th May 2016
• Ilford Recorder Letters - 2nd June 2016
• Ilford Recorder Article - 9th June 2016