East London Green Grid Area 2

East London Green Grid

Epping Forest and River Roding

2 Area Framework

Contents

1 Foreword and Introduction 2 East London Green Grid Vision and Methodology 3 ELGG Framework Plan 4 ELGG Area Frameworks 5 ELGG Governance

6 8 9 10 12 14

Area Strategy Area Description Strategic Context Vision Objectives Opportunities

16 18 20 22

Project Identification Clusters Projects Map Rolling Projects List

24 Phase One Early Delivery 26 Project Details 36 Forward Strategy 38 Gap Analysis 39 Recommendations 42 Appendices 42 Baseline Description 44 Group Membership

Cover Image: view north from the Roding Trading Estates

Foreword

As it meanders its way from Essex to the Thames, the Roding Valley and Epping Forest tell a story of over 1000 years of London’s history. From the royal hunting grounds of England’s Kings and Queens to Barking’s fishing fleets and industrial areas, this locality has been forced to adapt to the pressures of society’s progress. The Roding Valley confronts us with the consequences of utility and manufacturing infrastructure that have resulted in fragmented and forgotten peripheral places within a post industrial landscape. This coupled with the evolution of ever faster and grander transport networks that have sought to bypass these backwaters, has left both pedestrian and local community marginalised and deprived.

The purpose of the Roding Valley and Epping Forest area framework is to set out the strategic objectives and support necessary to deliver part of the enhanced open space network required for the twenty first century city dweller. Set in an evolving part of the capital, the framework comes at an opportune moment.

Barking Riverside (one of Europe’s largest future housing schemes), the developing cultural destinations at Barking’s Town Quay and elsewhere, plus wider links to growth areas at Ilford and the Thames Gateway mean the demands of an expanding population in East London cannot be ignored. This driver echoes London’s past, when the development of Victorian suburbs and the ambitious improvement plans for a more equitable post war Britain created a greater emphasis on the strategic provision of accessible high quality public space.

The need for partners to act collectively is paramount. The framework’s vision not only includes establishing new metropolitan parks within the Roding area but key to the strategy is the removal of barriers. This will ensure better access and improved connections between north, south, east and west and create usable safe routes between major open spaces for the first time.

Over the past seven years Groundwork London has contributed to London-wide strategies for open space in the Mayor’s London Plan and Strategic Parks Report, which are now being turned into practical development and delivery of new regional and metropolitan parks in South and West London.

For more than fourteen years we have also been attracting and deploying substantial resources to help communities and partners invest directly in the key roles that these new urban landscapes can play in people’s quality of life. Groundwork London

Lindy Kelly Director, Groundwork London

welcomes the opportunity to play a central role in bringing together the wide set of partners that will be necessary to respond positively to the challenges in the area framework.

Our work in partnership with the GLA and CLG, plus other statutory and voluntary agencies seeks to develop new urban landscape initiatives across London. Key to achieving this objective will be meaningful and responsive community engagement that reflects the needs of local communities in these spaces as they evolve.

We are currently working with our London partner the GLA on plans for European Union city region programmes that will include the Roding Valley and Epping Forest, and the Lower Lea.

Introduction – East London Green Grid Vision and Methodology Introduction East London’s unique landscape is already recognised as an asset that reinforces character, identity and environmental resilience. Now a more ambitious network of green infrastructure, the East London Green Grid (ELGG), is being planned alongside other infrastructure, such as transport, utilities, and schools. It will serve to strike a balance between development targets and environmental quality.

It will support sustainable communities, tackle climate change and enhance our open spaces and natural landscapes.

Developed in partnership with the East London Boroughs, Thames Gateway London Partnership, the Environment Agency and Natural England, The Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone has published an ELGG forward strategy (‘Primer’) and Draft Supplementary Planning Guidance to the London Plan, Nov 2006. These documents communicate a comprehensive strategic open space network for east London and broad recommendations for its integrated delivery into existing and proposed development.

Area Frameworks, identifying partnership linkages for site-specific projects, and assisting with potential funding sources.

ELGG Area Frameworks The ELGG SPG provides the sub-regional framework for the development of the Green Grid and describes how to integrate the open space network into the planning and regeneration of East London. ELGG Area Frameworks provide a mechanism for Area Groups to develop and deliver the ELGG Vision at the local level.

The frameworks develop the strategic objectives for each area as set out in the SPG. These strategic objectives will serve as performance criteria, to support, develop and assess project development and delivery.

The ELGG Area Frameworks, subject to partner agreement, can either inform or be developed as Joint Development Plan Documents (DPDs) or Area Action Plans (AAPs) and be adopted as part of the LDF in each borough.

It is recommended that ELGG Area Frameworks and project proposals be prepared in conjunction Forward Strategy with input from the Environment Agency to ensure The Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone and project that they incorporate all possible flood and surface partners have set up a Project Board and Working water management opportunities. In addition to Group which has established the following as a harvesting water before it enters the river system forward strategy: locations within the East London Green Grid have 1 Develop a supportive policy framework at been recognised as having significant potential for strategic and local levels very occasional tidal flood storage (1 in 100 year 2 Develop and support existing project rate maximum).

ELGG Area Frameworks support the delivery governance structures 3 Establish six Area Projects Frameworks of the overarching Green Grid Vision and Strategic 4 Develop and support a first phase of project Objectives. At a more local level they will; – support and coordinate stakeholder organisations delivery, including help with funding strategies. and working approaches, consolidate resources, ELGG Area Groups coordinate efforts and facilitate cross agency The formation of ELGG area steering groups bring working together the east London boroughs, representatives – interrogate earlier research to establish a of partner agencies and other stakeholders to develop comprehensive baseline understanding of and implement the Green Grid vision, objectives and each area – define a vision, area objectives and strategic projects, area by area.

By utilising and expanding existing structures and opportunities for each area forming new groups where they do not exist already, – assess and prioritise projects for funding ELLG area groups are now established in all six of submission. Essentially evaluating each project’s the East London Green Grid Areas. In the longer term potential to deliver the Green Grid vision – identify the resources required and form bidding dedicated delivery organisations providing services similar to the Lee Valley Regional Park Authority and strategies to deliver the funding for strategic projects – ensure that the area’s strategic projects interface the South-East London Green Chain could be set up.

The ELGG Project Board and Working Group, along with with Borough Local Development Frameworks, the ELGG Forum are facilitating the formation of these Open Spaces Strategies and regeneration and ELGG Area groups, ensuring the synergy of Green Grid investment frameworks.

Each ELGG Area Framework will be lead by the chair of the Area Group, in close partnership with the ELGG Working group (GLA,LDA,TGLP,EA,EN) and an allocated LDA Design Advisor. It is intended that Area Steering Groups and LDA Design Advisors will utilise the outputs and findings contained in the ELGG SPG to the London Plan.

Introduction – ELGG Framework Plan (SPG to the London Plan) Regional Parks Metropolitan Parks District Parks Local Parks and Open Spaces Small Open Spaces Linear Parks Private Open Space

+ Deficiency in Public Open Space – Strategic Corridors Strategic Links Barriers to pedestrian access Strategic Projects

The map above illustrates the strategic framework plan for the East London Green Grid draft SPG to the London Plan. The composite drawing illustrates open space typologies, open space deficiency and primary transport corridors. It identifies strategic opportunities and projects for the Green Grid area.

Introduction – ELGG Area Frameworks

Section 1 Area Strategy This section examines the context and baseline conditions, to propose a vision, area objectives and a set of area strategic opportunities in line with the ELGG SPG. Together these form a framework for future change, project development and evaluation.

Section 2 Project Identification A schedule of project suggestions for consideration by the area group, design advisor and working group. Including interventions to be delivered through development, and those requiring site acquisition. Each project is mapped and described in a rolling project list.

Section 3 Phase One Early Delivery The results of the area’s project review and assessment, identifying the projects which best deliver the strategic objectives, as well as those which are feasible and deliverable.

Thereby constituting a first phase of delivery.

Section 4 Forward Strategy The area chair and design advisor sum up the area’s delivery of the Green Grid vision and identify any gaps, outlining the next steps in order to develop and deliver phase one. They give their aspirations, and recommendations, including future governance options.

Introduction – ELGG Governance 1 Lea Valley 2a Epping Forest London 2b Roding Valley 3a Fairlop Plain 3b Thames Chase, Beam and Ingrebourne 4 London Riverside 5 Bexley, River Cray and Southern Marshes 6 SE London Green Chain Plus

The Forward Strategy proposes that the east London sub region be divided into six Green Grid Areas as illustrated above. The formation of ELGG Area steering groups will bring together the east London boroughs, representatives of partner agencies and other stakeholders to develop and implement the Green Grid vision, objectives and projects, area by area.

Charlie Brown’s round-about

Area Strategy

This section examines the local and strategic context to establish a distinct vision and set of objectives for Area 2.

These have been developed, in line with the SPG to the London Plan, to establish a framework for future change, project development and evaluation.

Area Strategy – Area Description Area Description The Roding Valley and Epping Forest (area 3) is characterised by its bifurcating north-south open space corridors . These linking the M25 and the green belt to the Thames via dense woodland and open agricultural landscapes and the urban centres of Ilford and Barking the Thames. The corridor is anchored at either end by significant open spaces. In the North east the vast expanse of Fairlop Plain where agricultural activity, gravel extraction and landfill have shaped a very open and singular landscape.

To the south a delta system of non contiguous post industrial spaces and pockets of ecology nestle with the remaining industries at the confluence of the Roding and the Thames. An area anticipating the arrival of Thames Gateway Bridge to reincarnate it as a Cross River strategic park. Unsurprisingly it maintains its rural and natural character with important ecological habitats and open spaces in the north whilst being densely urbanised and industrialised in the south. This dichotomy is the biggest challenge and opportunity for this part of the East London Green Grid.

The Roding is one river system that crosses several boroughs and the strategic nature of the Green Grid initiative is essential here. Change in any one part of a system will have an impact on other parts regardless of administrative boundaries.

Change needs to be considered in relation to the whole ecology, as a complex matrix of human and environmental factors. There are great challenges in these disjointed environments and how they relate to local and regional culture, and that is what makes them beguiling.

These are places that take time to appreciate.

They are not immediately beautiful in a classical sense, although they can certainly be aesthetically appreciated, as unsentimental representations of an era of urban growth and urban agriculture seemingly unrestrained and unconcerned with creating any particular legacy of high quality open space.

Reverie The journey described here follows the course of the River Roding and richly illustrates this change in landscape character. In the northern part of the study area the River Roding lazily meanders though a semi agrarian landscape with weeping willows, vernacular architecture and naturalised river banks. However public access is limited and intermittent.

Travelling south, the River Roding is partially canalised in sections off the Chigwell Road, where the infrastructure of the North Circular turns into a spaghetti formation, named after East End’s Charlie Brown the infamous boxer and publican, which spreads itself uncompromisingly across the landscape. Inconspicuous to most, the Roding finds its way through the concrete stanchions, past an old pumping station in a canalised construction adjacent to allotments. Further south the river becomes tangled in the road and rail viaducts of Ilford. The recently reconstructed pathway out of Wanstead Park alongside the City of London Cemetery, is frustratingly distant from the river. The River Roding becomes essentially a hidden asset until the mill pond at Barking, where the footpath emerges and continues in various uncoordinated constructions from one section to the next. Either side of this stretch of the river are the dense neighbourhoods of East Ham, Barking and Loxford that would all benefit from improved access to open space.

At the lower reaches of the River Roding there are extraordinary ecological enclaves of reed beds beneath the belly of the A406, but the path leads nowhere and the character of the landscape is heavily influenced by the security measures employed by adjacent land-uses.

The path is constrained within palisade fencing but nonetheless the opportunity for linked riverside nature areas offers great potential all the way to the Barking Barrage. Here the mudflats and reedbeds are broad, and listed working wharves recall a seafaring history. The air is distinct in odour and the sky is big. The new footpath along the river is soon to open, although access through the northern outfall treatment plant is restricted. A cycleway that terminates unceremoniously in a retail park, is distant enough from the Roding and from the Thames Path to be frustrating. However, there is a view over the rusty pier heads towards the landfill topography of Greenwich and the site of the proposed Cross River Park.

The potential for a continuous network of parks and greenways along the length of the River Roding

View from Tripcock Point towards Beckton in the south of study area

is obvious. Well connected to the City of London, just a half hour journey on the Central Line, it is not hard to imagine full circle connectivity in being able to cycle the Roding Valley Way, pick up the Thames Path westward, and return back to the City.

The landscape of the Roding Valley is hard to negotiate and challenging to cross. Pathways are often penned in, and opportunities to embrace pockets of ecological interest seem to be ignored.

In the Roding Valley there is the opportunity to understand and interpret the consequences of human and natural systems, to reveal ecologies and either subvert or enhance them. Flanking brownfield sites, areas perceived as wasteland offer a rich and particular wildlife, archaeological resource and post-industrial landscape of greater interest than the average piece of green belt.

There is much contrast in this dynamic and complex environment. Much of the lower valley could be termed as peripheral, containing unlikely spaces on the edge of structures, or fractured marginal places that lack strong identity and that are neither quite one thing or another. Spaces left over, or environments where the pedestrian and the local residents do not seem to have been given any priority, nevertheless provide disparate and surprising places for allotments, horse riding or bird watching.

Area Strategy – Strategic Context Strategic Context This map illustrates development context for ELGG Area 2. Information has been collated from the UDPs of Newham, Barking and Dagenham, Redbridge and environment agencies recommendations for river restorations. It also indicates a mutually beneficial relationship with the Green Arc to the north.

Metropolitan Open Land Green Belt Kent and Essex Green Grids London Thames Gateway Town Centres GLA draft housing strategy Strategic Employment Land Borough walking, cycling, bridleway Borough green space connections Borough tree lined streets Landmarks, prospects, views Mineral / Waste Sites Environment Agency River Restoration

Area Strategy – Vision The landscapes of the Roding Valley and Epping Forest are vibrant and complex. This is no pastoral idyll or Royal Park. This is inner city regeneration, concerned with neighbourhoods and corridors in need of environments of quality that respond to the needs of the twenty first century metropolitan dweller.

Much of the Roding Valley could be termed as peripheral. Peripheral in the sense that fragmented networks of open space are either on the edge of structures, or disconnected marginal places, severed by railways, highways or energy infrastructure.

As a result these once interconnected landscapes have a diminished identity and are programmatically neither one thing or another.

Many of these spaces or environments have been left over in a response to our need for ever grander and faster transportation corridors, where the pedestrian and the local resident have not been a priority. In these situations the term ‘landscape’ seems inappropriate in a classical sense and ‘openspace infrastructure’ more representative.

The projects in this framework seek to redress this situation responding directly to the sense of acceleration and fragmentation to define ‘slowscapes’; coherent and dynamic open spaces providing access and connectivity where at present there is none.

The Green Grid provides the opportunity alongside many other local initiatives to harness the process of change and to address the pedestrian and cyclist rather than the motorist. The opportunity exists to recognise and interpret the consequences of human and natural systems, to reveal ecologies and either subvert or enhance them; putting meanders back in the river, creating bigger urban sponges to respond to climate change and the requirement for greater and more effective flood attenuation, ambitious landscapes and occupation. If the micro components are understood it will often give answers and insight to the macro system and to enable design in a sense ‘grow’ out of the ground. The Green Grid landscapes must be multifunctional and at any scale the land needs to work harder, beauty and splendour though not obsolete considerations are not enough on their own. The works need to qualify as ‘green infrastructure’, flood alleviation, ecological corridors, microclimate modifiers, social and economic regenerators, improve the wider public realm or be considered in connection with community initiatives to raise the status and aspirations of the Green Grid projects to that of a virtual exemplary green framework for East London.

10

The Green Grid should create projects that read the land, work with the archaeology of the site or region, its soils, climate, ecology, local and regional culture.

They should respond to and interpret community needs while embracing change.

The timeframe for the Green Grid projects should be diverse. On one hand short term opportunities should be grasped but planning for long term environmental improvement, in terms of hundreds of years rather than decades. The East London Green Grid projects must be sustainable and therefore governance and revenue funding are critical.

The key assets of the Roding Valley and Epping Forest area that have been considered in the definition and refinement of the Green Grid projects are: – the watercourse of the River Roding – the proximity of metropolitan centres and major urban centres – the continuous network of open spaces and links within Epping Forest connecting the urban with the green belt – the scale of Fairlop Plain and the potential to redefine a productive landscape for the whole of London – the historic remnants of designed landscapes.

– the industrial heritage of the Lower Roding – the proximity of east – west and north – south strategic footpaths – the potential to create a metropolitan visitor offer in Fairlop Plain recreating the spirit of the Fairlop Fair – the connection of the visitor offer in Epping Forest east towards Havering through Redbridge – major projects: The River Roding Metropolitan Park opportunity and Cross River Park enhance the cultural identity, amenity and open space quality provision.

Future Change Unlike other areas within the East London Green Grid where the extent of change is defined by the large scale investment programmes for post industrial landscapes. The Green Grid projects identified within this framework are the products of a range of processes and partnerships. In some parts change is required to undo the severance created by largescale transport infrastructure such as the A406.

In other areas it is recognition of the importance of the existing historic park systems and a commitment to improving the existing facilities and quality of open space provision to meet the needs of the twentieth first century city dweller.

Area Strategy – Vision

Roding Valley and Epping Forest character collage

11

Area Strategy – Objectives

Quality To significantly enhance the natural environment and visual quality of the area.

Access To create links for pedestrians, horse riders, cyclists and livestock to other open spaces and improve accessibility Flood risk To include flood risk management considerations within new development.

12

Mitigating the urban environment To mitigate adverse visual, noise, air, and water polluting impacts of urban development, transport and utility infrastructure.

More uses To improve the provision and quality of formal passive and active recreational facilities within a multi-functional green space.

Community To encourage the active involvement of the community by promoting active participation, education and employment opportunities.

Connections To explore ways of increasing east-west connectivity for pedestrians, cyclists and bridleways.

Area Strategy – Objectives

Nature conservation To conserve and enhance the character and biodiversity of the semi-natural woodland, heath, grassland and ponds in particular in the north of the area.

Balance To maintain a balance between a romantic pastoral landscape for quiet contemplation and a recreational landscape for outdoor pursuits in the north of the sub-area.

Respect for nature That all recreation activities, including organised walks and horse riding should be sensitive to and respectful of the natural environment particularly in the forest setting of Epping Forest.

Open space deficiency To address the identified public open space deficiency areas of the area in particular in the south of the area through metropolitan parks

Traditional management To sensitively manage and restore woodland and ponds and promote traditional management techniques such as pollarding.

Heritage To preserve the industrial and maritime heritage in the south of the area.

Town centres To link town centres using parks or tree lined streets as a link if necessary.

13

Area Strategy – Opportunities Within the Roding Valley and Epping Forest area there are two strategic projects identified. The largest of which is the Fairlop Plan project which aims to bring a new value to this landscape. Fairlop would be reconsidered in terms of the opportunities that a large-scale productive landscape can bring to local people and London as whole in contrast the potential to create small scale productive gardens for developing ‘green skills’. Initial studies are exploring the potential to build and enhance the existing sporting and active programmes of Fairlop to create an Olympic Legacy resource. It is also intended to introduce elements of urban food production, tourism, landscapes for the dead (cemetery and crematoria) and much improved connections for cyclists to the surrounding areas. The other strategic project within the area framework is the creation of a metropolitan park by combining the resources of Mayesbrook and Goodmayes Park. This cross borough initiative between Redbridge and Barking and Dagenham will directly address an area of deficiency in access to a Metropolitan Park. To the south of the area the creation of a Metropolitan Park from Ilford to the River Thames culminates in the proposed Cross River Park.

Public Open Space

Regional Parks

Metropolitan Parks

District Parks

Local Parks and Open Spaces

Small Open Spaces

Linear Parks

Private Open Space

Open space strategic opportunities

strategic corridors

Strategic links

Barriers to pedestrian access

Strategic projects

Regional park Opportunities

14

Area Strategy – Opportunities

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 To restore the river Roding and its tributaries with natural riverbanks replacing the existing engineered concrete channels, incorporating flood storage and alleviating urban run-off

To create a Metropolitan Park from Ilford to the Thames (including Cross River Park), linking to the Roding, the Beckton Park Link, the proposed Thames Gateway Bridge, and on to the south side of the river, maximising pedestrian and cycle connectivity, and improving ecological value

To recreate natural habitats around Barking Creek to establish wetland habitats such as grazing marsh, reed beds, ponds and wet woodland, increasing accessibility with potential for productive uses

To create a link between the Roding Valley, Claybury, Fairlop, Hainault Forest Country Park and Havering along the Redbridge Link

To improve access to and awareness of rivers particularly in the lower part of the Green Grid Area in conjunction with flood alleviation measures and biodiversity

To maintain the navigability of the lower Roding for commercial and leisure use

To improve the linkages between Mayesbrook Park and Goodmayes Park & Recreation Ground in order to address the Metropolitan Park deficiency

15

Roding Lane South underpass

16

Project Identification

This section details all ELGG project suggestions: public authority projects, interventions delivered through development, and site acquisitions. Each project is mapped, described within a rolling project list and assessed aganist this area’s strategic opportunities.

17

Project Identification – Clusters Clusters The projects identified in the Roding Valley and Epping Forest Framework have been arranged into clusters that are either related in terms of geographic proximity, landscape character or where one cluster becomes the parent project of a number of smaller projects. Projects within clusters can be implemented independently but have an over arching strategy that will deliver an interconnected vision. The clusters are described on the opposite page.

Unlike other areas within the East London Green Grid the influence of development on the delivery of projects is perhaps not so apparent or obvious in Area 2. The Cross River Park project at the confluence of the River Roding with the River Thames has a number of development opportunities that are interrelated to it’s delivery, refer to East London Green Grid Framework 4 – London Riverside for more details. The Cross River Park cluster is shown on the cluster diagram because of the strategic influence over the whole of Roding Valley and Epping Forest framework area.

18

Project Identification – Clusters The clusters for the Roding Valley and Epping Forest area are:

2.4 Ilford to Ray Park This cluster contains project proposals that respond to the conditions created by the A406, North Circular 2.1 Newham to Barking Town Centre at grade and the viaduct structures. Sections of the At the lower reaches of the River Roding before River Roding were also altered to accommodate the Barking Creek there are a number of projects within road, with canalisation, straightening and diversions the London Borough of Newham. These projects are added to the river course. The Green Grid projects primarily about improving the open space qualities of seek to reinstate stretches of the Roding and these existing spaces and providing improved access. introduce naturalised river conditions to increase The Northern Outfall Sewer regeneration project will flood attenuation by slowing storm water movement provide improved connections west through Newham and creating greater absorption capacity within the to the site of the 2012 Olympics. Many of the projects landscape. The other projects address issues of east described within the London Riverside clusters, 4.01 – west connectivity that have been created by the Cross River Park North, 4.04 Barking Town Centre Plus A406. The projects seek to improve the pedestrian and 4.06 Barking to the Thames share responsibility and cycling environment beneath the road and for creating the improved access from the Newham provide bridge links were necessary. side to the Barking side of the River Roding. The Cross River park is a cluster of projects that overlaps 2.5 Fairlop Plain and Hainault Country Park with several area frameworks and has an important This cluster contains projects relating to the Fairlop strategic location at the heart of the East London Plain landscape and connections to the Upper Roding Green Grid, providing key links to the east and west and Hainault Country Park. Located to the north and north and south. of Redbridge and on the boundary of Barking and Dagenham this large network of public and private 2.2 Ilford Bridge open spaces contains a number of productive This cluster is located around the intersection of the landscape typologies; farming, gravel extraction, A406 north circular and the Romford Road, the major country parks, sailing lakes, sports fields and transport interchange at Ilford Station and close to cemeteries. The Green Grid projects seek to address the proposed East London Transit line. The extensive issues of connectivity between these landscapes public transport system requires enhancement to improve the pedestrian and cyclist environment. through improved pedestrian and cycle routes with Improving the existing visitor offer and promoting the potential to create access to the north of the new attractions is also a prime objective of the railway, creating a valuable link between the urban projects in this cluster. This cluster is well served heart of Redbridge with Wanstead Park, Epping Forest by underground services from central London. and the green belt beyond. The Green Grid projects within this cluster seek to address this.

2.6 Upper Roding to Epping Forest The most northerly cluster is on the boundary 2.3 Wanstead Flats and Wanstead Park of Greater London. The projects identified are This cluster contains the southern reaches of Epping within Epping Forest and are elements of existing Forest. Through improved pedestrian connections Conservation and Management Plans that require, further south large urban areas could directly access funding or feasibility studies prior to work beginning.

Epping Forest. Wanstead Flats and the remnants of This cluster contains significant ecological resources the designed landscape of Wanstead Park along with that require sensitive consideration when providing the City of London Cemetery are managed by the improved access to nature. The peripheral nature Epping Forest Conservators. The Green Grid projects of these projects within Greater London will require in this cluster are complimentary to the ongoing close collaboration with Green Arc initiatives. conservation and management plans for each open space and are concerned with improving user facilities.

2.7 River Roding Enhancements The projects within this cluster are located along the banks of the River Roding. The projects are concerned with naturalising the riverbanks, reinstating meanders and improving flood alleviation.

The opportunity exists to relocate bunds along the length of the river to create wider flood plains that can incorporate wet meadows and improved public access to the Roding Valley Way and absorbent landscapes.

2.8 Tree lined streets The tree-lined streets or opportunistic street tree planting will create verdant boulevards throughout the borough of Barking and Dagenham. These streets reinforce the green infrastructure that links key Green Grid projects within the borough and will also provide essential way finding/ greenways between the adjacent boroughs of Redbridge, Newham and Havering.

Forest Road through Fairlop Plain

19

20 The following maps illustrate the disposition of projects in the framework area. The maps are followed by the rolling list of projects which provides greater level of description.

The Roding Valley and Epping Forest framework is composed of a suite of projects that include: – greenway access – open space improvements – open space creation – new access points to open spaces – habitat improvements – riverine improvements – urban tree lined streets – feasibility Studies – promotion projects.

Phase one project Completed project Linking projects Phase one link Buildings and structures Regional park study

Related open space

2.1.03 Project code

Open space projects

Project Mapping

Project Identification – Projects Map

21

2.1.01 2.1.02

Phase one

Gap fillers

Later phases

Borough / Locality

N Barking Road Recreation Ground Lady Trower Trust open space Y

N

Newham

Upgrade publicly owned open space to increase usage. To include improvements to accessibility, provision of toilets, planting and sports facilities. LB Newham to produce a management plan and masterplan.

N

Newham

The project intends to make this closed green field site accessible for the first time in a number of years. The site is at a strategic location providing access for the communities of Newham to the River Roding/proposed future metropolitan park form Ilford to the Thames. The land is a green field site comprising mature trees, over grown shrubs and unimproved pasture. The capital works once complete will enable the site to continue as natural parkland with a variety of passive and active uses.

Enhancing/protecting the biodiversity of the site will be a key objective as well as improving its connection to the wider ELGG.

Project name

Strategic project

Project number

Complete

Thames Gateway

Project Identification – Rolling Projects List Project description, status and next steps

2.1.03 2.1.04

Barrington Arches

N

N

Newham

Overcoming barriers to local movement. Environmental improvements on the Roding Valley Way in order to make the area more accessible.

Barking Park

N

Y

Barking & Dagenham

This project will upgrade built structures and combine facilities to create a dynamic heart of the park. Work includes replacing fencing with planting, relocating cars and car parks, improving the entrance, and moving the play area to heart of park for saftey and access. New woodlands will reinforce the landscape and historic arboretum, whilst the lake will be enhnaced by establishing reed beds and wildlife. The redundant lido will be refurbushied for community use.

2.1.05

Essex Road Footbridges link to Greatfields park

N

Y

Barking & Dagenham Improvements to these footbridges would result in improved connectivity across significant barriers. Requires a feasibility study and masterplan. Highlighted by GWEL as a project that could involve partenship working and potentially lever in support from BIG lottery, LWGS, Comic Relief and private charitable trusts.

2.1.06 2.1.07

Greatfields Park

N

Y

Barking & Dagenham Park improvements. In 2007-2008 a friends group will commence. In 2008-2009 preparation of the park to reach Green Flag status will commence.

Mayesbrook Park and Goodmayes Park link

Y

N

2.1.08

Loxford Water link

N

Y

Barking & Dagenham Potential masterplan to create a park of Metropolitan importance. Internal park bridge improvements. Wildlife corridor between parks. LB Barking & Dagenham and EA to jointly fund masterplan and consultation. The connection to Goodmayes Park will be addressed both through this masterplan but also through UEL s106 development brief. Coordination work has not yet commenced. Costs could increase to £9million for aspirational sporting hub. 2.1.07.a Mayesbrook Park 2.1.07.b G dproject isP a kfeasibility li k Barking & Dagenham This study into opportunities to de-canalise/re-interpret the Loxford between Barking Park and the Roding, The opportunity exists to strengthen

2.2.01

Little Ilford Park/ Websters Land

Y

N

Newham

2.2.02

River Roding through Ilford stage 2 Alderbrook Subway

Y

N

Redbridge

Y

N

Newham

Wanstead Flats

Y

N

Redbridge

2.3.02 2.4.01

Wanstead Park

2.4.02

2.2.03 2.3.01

Y

N

Redbridge

Roding Lane south underpass Y

N

Redbridge

South Eaton Rise link

Y

N

Redbridge

2.4.03

Charlie Brown Round-a-bout

Y

N

Redbridge

2.4.04

Ray Park

Y

N

Redbridge

2.4.05 2.5.01

Ray Park plus

2.5.02

links from the Roding via the Loxford Water into Loxford Park in LB Redbridge. The Barking Park proposals include an aspiration to bridge across Loxford Water, and although there is currently no resident support for this, it remains an aspiration of the two boroughs and the GLA. Upgrade publicly-owned open space to increase use. To include sports facilities, accessibilty improvements and nature conservation areas which could develop a stronger sense of place, through improved landscaping, a habitat mosaic with mown paths through meadows, and by creating a pond and wetland, and trees / native shrubs to provide sheltered spots. LB Newham to produce a management plan and masterplan.

Vital link between Ilford Town Centre and Wanstead Park, connecting the Roding Valley Way. To include signage, lighting of pathways and the bridge, enhance habitat and biodiversity. Secure access from Ilford Town centre across south side of Ilford Golf Course.

Upgrade Section of the Roding Valley Way to attract increased use by pedestrians and cyclists.

Green roofing for a new sporting and recreational pavilion. The roofing will provide ecological value; enhance biodiversity and the existing green space in general.

Completed to briefing stage. The overall site management plan is also completed and app Implementation of environmental improvements identified in the existing management plan.

Define a new pathway scale within the massive engineering structure of the A406 to create a more acceptable pedestrian environment, lighting, surfacing and habitat creation. Consider the underbelly of the A406 as an art and lighting opportunity in relation to Create an east - west community link, replacement of bridge to link grasslands. CPO strip of land adjacent to allotments to link grasslands between Byway and Eaton Rise. Reintroduce original oxbow lakes and the decanalised alignment of the River Roding.

Redefine the pedestrian environment beneath the intersection. Ensure that legible connections onto the Roding Valley Way to the north and south. Define a lighting strategy to highlight the road engineering and pylon architecture and to improve pedestrian space.

Focus on community links, education and horticulture. Establish a programme of collaborating artists. Establish a youth horticulture programme using existing refurbished greenhouses. Establish Redbridge Nature conservation offices by upgrading building stock. Consider opening up access to the river, and diversify grassland management to encourage wild flowers, in order to become site of Borough Importance for Nature Conservation.

Development of enhanced visitor attraction around a programme of reinstating the natural character of the River Roding and improving flood storage capacity.

Y

N

Redbridge

Fairlop Plain - Hainault Forest - Y Havering Country Park

N

Redbridge

A Greenway for Redbridge

Y

N

Redbridge

2.5.03 2.6.01 2.6.02 2.6.03 2.6.05 2.6.06 2.7.01

Fairlop Plain to Essex Link

Y

N

Redbridge

The main aim of the project is to link existing initiatives and improve accessibility linking green spaces within the subarea and between other three subareas through to Hackney, Havering and London Riverside and to the Green Arc to Epping Forest. Woodland trust has >2m to purchase key sites to guarantee links to Epping Forest and Hainault Forest Improved pedestrian and cycle links between Fairlop Plain and Barking Town Centre. Construction to an appropriate standard of what is effectively a 10 km linear park.

A programme of works will follow the completion of a feasibility study, due Dec 07.

Feasibility study to identify improved pedestrian and cycle links between Fairlop Plain and Essex. Followed by designation / implementation.

Lords Bushes

N

N

Redbridge

Implementation of environmental improvements identified in the existing management plan.

Barn Hoppit

N

N

Waltham Forest

Implementation of environmental improvements identified in the existing management plan.

Branching out

Y

N

Redbridge

Improvement of access to the heritage resource and physical and intellectual levels.

Epping to Lea E-W links

N

N

Waltham Forest

Feasibility study to identify improved pedestrian and cycle links between Epping Forest and the Lea Valley. Followed by designation and implementation.

Epping to Roding E-W links

N

N

Redbridge

Feasibility study to identify improved pedestrian and cycle links between Epping Forest and the Roding Valley. Followed by designation and implementation.

Redbridge at Ashton Brook

Y

N

Redbridge

2.7.02 2.7.03

Redbridge at Ray Park

2.7.05 2.7.06

Redbridge A406 - A12

Y

N

Redbridge

Proposal to expand this habitat comprise the excavation of backwaters/ ponds of varying lengths, widths and profiles. This will expand and increase diversity of aquatic and marginal habitat whilst preserving geomorphological processes. Removal of River Roding flood defense bund and relocation of bund adjacent to the M11/ A406 to reinstate approximately 15ha of functional floodplain. Further feasibility work is required to determine the potential of current and desired land uses. Enhancement to land adjacent to River Roding. 1 Hectare of Backwater Habitat and Pond being created 07/08 with £149k from Growth Area Fund Round 2.

Proposal to create backwater.

Redbridge at Luxborough STW Y

N

Redbridge

Proposal to create backwater approximately 30m in length.

Y

N

Redbridge

Proposed excavation of backwater approx 100m in length on the Left Bank of the Roding.

Redbridge opposite Ilford Golf Y Course Land opposite Wanstead Park Y

N

Redbridge

Proposal to excavate backwater approx 30m in length on the Right Bank of Roding.

N

Redbridge

Proposal to relocate flood bund to create wetland habitat and flood storage space. An area of approximately 12ha of recreation grounds, allotments and woodland lies landward of the bund along this 1km stretch. It is also proposed to remove this bund and reposition it adjacent to the A406 embankment thus reinstating 12ha as functional floodplain. It is also proposed to create backwaters and a series of ponds within the area which would provide valuable habitat.

2.8.01

Gascoigne Road (Abbey Green N to Greatfields Park)

N

2.8.02

Ripple Road (Abbey Green to N Lancaster Ave) Rosslyn Road/ Levett Road to N Upney Lane Upney Lane (South Park drive N to Ripple Cemetery)

N

Barking & Dagenham Tree lined streets throughout the LBBD part of the sub area to act as gateways to the Green Grid. Feasibility study required to analyse the constraints to determined how many trees can be realistically planted. This will involve street by street consultation and analysis of utilities and car parking information. In reality of the number of trees that are likely to actually be planted will be significantly lower that the cost estimates currently imply.

Barking & Dagenham Tree lined streets throughout the LBBD part of the sub area to act as gateways to the Green Grid. Feasibility study required to analyse the constraints to determined how many trees can be realistically planted. This will involve street by street consultation and analysis of utilities and car parking information.

Barking & Dagenham Tree lined streets throughout the LBBD part of the sub area to act as gateways to the Green Grid. In reality of the number of trees that are likely to actually be planted will be significantly lower that the cost estimates currently imply.

Barking & Dagenham Tree lined streets throughout the LBBD part of the sub area to act as gateways to the Green Grid. In reality of the number of trees that are likely to actually be planted will be significantly lower that the cost estimates currently imply.

2.7.09

2.8.03 2.8.04

22

N N

Project size Project owner (ha / m)

Associated programmes

Identified delivery capacity Delivery agency LB Newham

Total cost

Funding in place

Funding required

3.7 ha

Dave Whittaker

6 ha

Groundwork

2.6 ha

Dave Whittaker

£50,000

£0

48.1 ha

David Theakston

Barking Town Centre Regeneration

LB Barking & Dagenham

£7,000,000

£2,485,000

0.6 ha

David Theakston

GWEL

LB Barking & Dagenham

£30,000

£0

6 ha

David Theakston

4.4 ha

David Theakston

8.1 ha

David Theakston

14.1 ha

Dave Whittaker

GLA Access to Nature high priority

6.2 ha

John Turkson

638 m

Dave Whittaker

Roding Valley Way, Ilford LB Redbridge Town Centre Roding Valley Way LB Newham

164.1 ha

Epping Forest

98.1 ha

Epping Forest

5.2 ha

Stefania Horne

LB Redbridge

8.2 ha

Stefania Horne

24.9 ha

Stefania Horne

50.8 ha

Stefania Horne

GLA Access to Nature high priority

LB Newham, Groundwork East London, Aston Mansfield Trust

LB Newham

UEL development, GLA Access to Nature high priority

£0

£200,000

£0

Date on site (assuming funding)

£50,000 £200,000 Groundwork making InterReg bid 2007/8 Q4

£50,000 £4,515,000 project is awaiting HLF Stage 2 decision for £3.5m. ELGG support in securing this

£638,000

Dowry through Land Restoration Trust

4

Friends Group formed and preparing to constitute.

1

£638,000

£0

LB Barking & Dagenham

£3,267,000

£50,000

2009

2

2009

3

LB Barking & Dagenham

£20,000

£0

£20,000 likely overall costs could be between £100k and £1m

0

LB Newham

£50,000

£0

£50,000

1

£10,000,000

£0

£10,000,000

0

£50,000

£0

£50,000

0

£1,000,000

£0

£1,000,000

2

£50,000

£0

£50,000

2

£50,000

£0

£50,000

0

LB Redbridge

£50,000

£0

£50,000

0

LB Redbridge

£50,000

£0

£50,000

0

LB Redbridge

0

50.8 ha 781.7 ha

2

0 2008

£30,000

£3,217,000 £50k allocated for masterplan.

Potential s106 from UEL development.

Long term management

0

LB Barking & Dagenham

management plan

Roding Valley Way

£50,000

Funding notes

Stage *

Project Identification – Rolling Projects List

0 Stefania Horne / Jim Jones

Green Arc

Mat Winfield

LB Redbridge

£3,000,000

£2,000,000

Sustrans, LB Redbridge

£1,000,000

£40,000

£50,000

£0

£1,000,000 Sustrans fund-raising for the cycling links. Woodland trust has >£2m to purchase key sites. £960,000 5k from DfL for feasibility 2008

1 2 0

52.7 ha

Epping Forest

management plan

66.4 ha

Epping Forest

management plan

3253.6 ha

Epping Forest

£50,000

2

£50,000

£0

£50,000

2

£6,500,000

£5,500,000

£1,000,000

0 0 0

399 m

Dave Hobbs

Environment Agency

£210,000

£210,000

£0

969 m

Rebecca O'Shea

Environment Agency

£50,000

£0

£50,000

1

581 m

Rebecca O'Shea

Environment Agency

£75,000

£0

£75,000

1

824 m

Rebecca O'Shea

Environment Agency

£75,000

£0

£75,000

1

497 m

Rebecca O'Shea

Environment Agency

£50,000

£0

£50,000

1

6 ha

Rebecca O'Shea

Environment Agency

£250,000

£0

£250,000 funding dependent on outcome of Roding Flood Risk Management Strategy

1169 m

David Theakston

LB Barking & Dagenham

£107,600

£0

£107,600 Total initiaitve £271,320

2008

1

1049 m

David Theakston

LB Barking & Dagenham

£93,600

£0

£93,600 Total initiaitve £271,320.

2008

1

575 m

David Theakston

LB Barking & Dagenham

£190,000

£0

£190,000

2008

1

1493 m

David Theakston

LB Barking & Dagenham

£120,000

£0

£120,000

2008

1

Flood Risk Management Strategy, Roding through Redbridge

2006

6

0

minimal increase in managment costs

23

View from Wanstead Park towards the River Roding and the North Circular

24

Phase One Early Delivery

This section identifies a first phase of projects to deliver area objectives and opportunities.

25

Phase One – Project Details The projects that have been identified for phase one delivery were assessed against the Green Grid project criteria, the potential for early delivery and the extent that the project can meet the strategic objective of the area. The projects were nominated by the project owners and where presented and reviewed at the area steering group meetings held throughout the framework production. In some cases where project briefs had been drafted prior to the East London Green Grid review process opportunities to enhance the brief were implemented. As a result some projects higher aspirations and improved multifunctionailty.

The phase one projects identified represent a broad spectrum of project owners with varying levels of resource commitment that fall into the following categories: The phase one projects identified represent a broad spectrum of project owners with varying levels of resource commitment that fall into the following categories: – external consultants required to carry out feasibility studies to clearly define the scope of the project and ensure that project briefs meet local aspirations and fulfil strategic objectives – feasibility study complete. Funding applications required to complete works where the secured funding is not adequate for project implementation – project ready to begin subject to assurances they meet Green Grid objectives.

The estimated programme for implementation varies for the phase one projects. Where the projects are dependent upon further scoping and feasibility work these projects should progress immediately, subject to confirmation of funding and the appointment and briefing of consultants. Where projects scopes are defined and funding is required these project can also be implemented once funding is secure.

The following projects illustrate the projects that made it through the phase 1 sifting process.

The following criteria was used as a guide to assessing each projects suitability for inclusion in phase one: – Deficiency: does the project reduce the area’s green space deficiency?

– Link: does the project provide or enhance green infrastructure or essential links to green space or sub area?

– Flood risk management gain: does the project increase surface water storage capacity or reduce residual flood risk?

– Ecology gain: will the project improve the area’s 26

existing ecology or biodiversity levels and/or create ecological linkages?

– Implementation: is there opportunity for prompt project implementation?

– Integrate: is the project link / adjacent to other priority committed development sites or zones of change?

– Ownership: does the land tenure permit green grid project work?

– Value: does the project provide a positive costbenefit for the Green Space improvements gained?

Does the project contribute to the delivery of the sub area strategic objectives and more widely the East London Green Grid?

Phase One – Project Details Associated projects: Newham UDP 2001 Partners/supportive organisations/funders: Groundwork East London, Aston Mansfield Trust, Land Restoration Trust, LB Newham, Thames Water, LDA, Local communities, GLA biodiversity unit Governance: Project manager: Groundwork East London Client: Aston Mansfield Trust Project sponsors: Land Restoration Trust Delivery Agency: Groundwork East London Land ownership: Aston Mansfield Trust Location: TQ434841 Size: 7.5 hectare Planning issues and designations: Proposal consistent with designation under the UDP 2001 Newham, grade 2 listing as a nature conservation site important to LB Newham, protected site of nature importance, protected Metropolitan Open Land, English Heritage Archaeological priority area Budget status: £200,000 Next steps: Finalisation of feasibility study, production of full masterplan with costed options, preferred option selection, detailed design and implementation Project masterplan: 2007/8 Q4 preferred option Selection plus implementation programme design Lady Trower Trust open space, Burges Road

Long term management scenario: Dowry through Land Restoration Trust

2.1.02 Lady Trower Trust open space This project finds itself at a strategic location providing access for the communities of Newham to the River Roding/proposed future metropolitan park form Ilford to the Thames. The land is a 7.5 hectare green field site comprising mature trees, over grown shrubs and unimproved pasture.

The capital works, once complete, will enable the site to continue as natural parkland with a variety of passive and active uses. Enhancing/protecting the biodiversity of the site will be a key objective as well as improving its connection to the wider ELGG. The project will resolve long term management issues through a dowry via the Land Restoration Trust.

27

Phase One – Project Details Associated projects: Barking Town Centre, Roding Valley Regeneration, GLA Access to Nature Partners / supportive organisation / funders: Heritage Lottery Fund, LB Barking & Dagenham Spatial Regeneration, GLA, Barking Park Friends Group, LB Redbridge, EA Governance: Project Manager: David Theakston, Mike Levett Client: LBBD Parks and LBBD Spatial Regeneration Sponsors: Allan Aubrey, Head of Leisure Arts & Olympics. Cllr. Val Rush, Executive Member and Portfolio Holder for Parks, HLF. Delivery Agency: LB Barking & Dagenham Land ownership: LB Barking & Dagenham Location: TQ 4485 SE Size: 30 hectares Planning issues / designations: Metropolitan Open Land, Protected Open Space, Nature Conservation Area, LTGDC Budget status: £8,800,000 £7m HLF project plus additional work for community engagement projects e.g. leisure consolidation, arts projects and allotment extension, plus feasibility costs the Loxford Water Link Next steps: HLF Project Planning Grant paid for masterplan, audience development plan and outline business plan.

Form Friends Group. 2006/07 is development phase to be commissioned along with HLF project manager Year of delivery: 2007 – 10 if fully funded Barking Park from Longbridge Road

2.1.04 Barking Park and 2.1.08 Loxford Water Link The main intention of this project is to upgrade the built structures and combine facilities to create a dynamic heart of the park.

The redundent lido and paddling pool will be refurbished for community use. The play area will be moved to the heart of the park for better surveillance and access. Cars and car parks will be removed and to the periphery and screened with shrubs.

Improve Park Avenue entrance to address safety.

Conserve and enhance the vegetation with new woodland and spring bulbs along Longbridge Road to reinforce the sense of enclosure and landscape quality whilst ensuring historic arboretum is preserved.

Enhance the appearance and ecological value 28

of the boating lake by removing barriers and signage, establishing marginal vegetation, reed beds and wildlife cover, and regular de-silting and litter clearance. Futher biodiversity improvements include channel improvements to Loxford water, wildflowers around the sports pitches, and establishing climbing plants on buildings.

In addition, there is an opportunity to strengthen links with the Roding, both via the Town Centre and Abbey Green, but also from the Roding via the Loxford Water into Loxford Park in LB Redbridge. Investigative feasibility work for a bridge across Loxford Water is included, and although there is currently no resident support for this, it remains an aspiration of the two boroughs and the GLA.

Long term management scenarios: The increase in grounds maintenance costs will be met through efficiency savings, section 106, and commercial sponsorship

Phase One – Project Details Associated projects: LBBD Parks & Green Spaces Strategy, GLA Strategic Parks, GLA Access to Nature Partners / supportive organisation / funders: EA, UEL, section106 Governance: Project Manager: LBBD Parks & Leisure Development. Sponsors: Allan Aubrey, Head of Leisure Arts & Olympics. Cllr. Val Rush, Executive Member and Portfolio Holder for Parks. Delivery Agency: LBBD Parks & Leisure Development Land ownership: Mayesbrook Park is owned by LBBD. The link site is currently under a development proposal with significant S106 potential. Goodmayes Park is owned by LB Redbridge. A more detailed management strategy would be drawn up as part of the project development Planning issues/designations: Metropolitan Open Land, Public Open Space, Local Nature Reserve Location: TQ 468 NW Size: Mayesbrook Park 45ha Budget status: The LBBD PGSS suggests a budget of £2,970,000, however for a leisure hub, costs could increase to £9 million. LBBD have allocated, subject to CPMO approval £40k in 2006/07 toward a masterplan/management plan based on consultation.

The river naturalisation proposal is identified in the Environment Agency’s North London River Restoration and they are keen to prioritise the project.

S.106 potential

View towards Mayesbrook Park

2.1.07 Mayesbrook Park and Goodmayes Park link The GLA Strategic Parks Project recommends strengthening links between Mayesbrook Park and Goodmayes Park. The potential to re-naturalise the river channel through Mayesbrook Park is supported by the Environment Agency’s North London River Strategy. There is potential to open up the Mayes Brook where it runs under the playing fields. Integrate river restoration with a developing wildlife habitat in the adjoining allotments. There is also an opportunity to create a wildlife corridor with public access linking the parks and to investigate options for naturalising the Mayes Brook through the parkland to improve landscape value, river corridor habitat and flood attenuation.

Next steps: Negotiations with LBR. Develop the Friends Group. Feasibility and master planning works.

Further designs, procurement and physical delivery of landscape improvements Delivery capacity: LBBD Parks & Leisure The project will improve vegetative structure through Development/Housing & Health extensive woodland planting along boundaries to break up central open space. This includes incorporating the Mayes Brook within the park and enhancing the ecological and landscape quality of the watercourse; Improving the water quality of the brook and lakes re-grading the lake banks and improve planting on islands, control of Canada Geese; screen planting to athletics facilities; improvement of the path system: relocate play facilities to sheltered heart of park; establish a real ‘heart’ of the park by grouping facilities by the lakes; to include leisure/changing facilities/rangers offices/café etc. Create a quiet enclosed eating area for elderly & disabled users near the ‘heart’ of the park.

29

Phase One – Project Details Delivery Agency: City of London and appointed partner agencies Land ownership: City of London, under the Epping Forests Acts of 1878 & 1880 Location: TQ410865 Size: Wanstead Flats, 182 ha Planning issues / designations: Heritage Land, under the Redbridge Unitary Plan, adopted November 2003; Conservation area; Site of Metropolitan Importance; Green Corridor; Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), in part; Historic Park & Garden, in part; Local and national Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) cover the habitats (acid grassland) and certain species Budget status: Building cost of the pavilion £1,000,000 Next Steps: The need of the project has been established.

Tenders need to be taken and the City of London needs to secure all funds in the next 6 – 12 months for the project to be implemented at the target date Delivery capacity: LB Barking & Dagenham, Parks & Leisure Development Project feasibility: 2007 – 2008 View towards Canary Wharf across Wanstead Flats

2.3.01 Wanstead Flats Green roof for a new sporting and recreational pavilion. The green roof will provide ecological value; enhance biodiversity and the existing green space in general. Completed to briefing stage. The overall site management plan is also completed and approved.

Feasibility, design detail and tender are to be completed for the pavilion.

Anticipated implementation end 2007, early 2008.

supporting this specific project include: London Borough of Redbridge; Metropolitan Essex District Cricket Board; Essex County FA; Gujarati Metropolitan Cricket League.

Potential funders include: Football Foundation; Clothworkers’ Foundation ; The London Marathon Trust; and further applications will be submitted to many other private funders over the coming months.

Governance: Project Manager: Sally Hopper, Warden of Wanstead Associated projects: Flats (the project is supported by Mat Roberts, Wanstead Flats Integrated Site Plan, Epping Forest Superintendent of Epping Forest) Partners / supportive organisation / funders: Client Organisation: City of London, Epping Forest The City of London is the Conservator of Epping Forest Project Sponsors: City of London, The Superintendent and the Wanstead Flats Playing Fields. Organisations of Epping Forest and the Director of Open Spaces.

30

Long term management scenarios: The City of London is committed to funding the ongoing management and maintenance of Wanstead Flats as part of its overall management and commitment to Epping Forest (as stated under the Epping Forest Acts)

Phase One – Project Details Associated projects: Epping Forest Management plan Partners / supportive organisation / funders: City of London Heritage Lottery Fund Essex County Council Governance: Mat Roberts Superintendent of Epping Forest City of London Land ownership: Corporation of London Size: 2,500 hectares Planning issues / designations: Special Area of Conservation, SSSI Project Type: Capital works and promotion Budget status: £6.5 million with £1.0 million outstanding Next steps: HLF Stage 1 pass awarded Stage 2 application to be submitted summer 2008 Project implementation from April 2009 Project feasibility: Subject to the £1million unfunded element being secured this project will be completed by 2014 Long term management scenarios: To be resourced by City of London Epping Forest Division Epping Forest Longhorn Cattle

2.6.03 Branching Out The Branching Out project will work through Epping Forest to improve access to the heritage resource and physical and intellectual levels.

There will be a new building at The Coach house, Queen Elizabeth Hunting Lodge, Rangers Road, Chingford. New facilities at Connaught Water, Rangers Road Chingford, Physical improvement to 18 arrival points and gateways throughout the Forest.

Enhanced educational and interpretation delivery A major keystone trees pollard development programme throughout The Forest.

31

Phase One – Project Details

View towards Fairlop Plain and north to Epping Forest

32

Phase One – Project Details 2.5.01 Fairlop Plain The main aim of the project is to link to existing initiative/projects and improve accessibility linking green spaces within the Roding area and between other three areas through hackney, Havering and London riverside and to the green arc to Epping Forest. The project will also focus on the restoration of Hainault Forest Country Parks as the heart of the above links and as the gateway between the Green Grid, the Green Arc and Thames Chase. The project has three elements: Preparation of a development plan to increase the opportunities of the use of existing greenspaces such as Hainault Forest Country Park and Fairlop Waters. The plan will help to maximise opportunities within existing projects such as the woodland Trust new woodlands, the Hog Hill development and links to Havering country park. The GOAL project by Sustrans proposes cycle links to the Olympic Park while the Fairlop area is developing cycling facilities alongside existing recreational facilities such as sailing, horse riding and walking. Increase links with particular emphasis to cycling links by refurbish existing infrastructure and create new ones. Proposed links are from Hainault to the Olympic Park, Hainault to Roding Valley and its connections to the north to Epping forest and to the south to the Thames and finally from Hainault to Havering and Thames chase by linking to the National Cycle Network Route 13. The project includes capital improvements at Hainault Forest Country Park infrastructure to maximise the opportunities highlighted within the development plan.

It is important that the existing biodiversity value of this Site of Borough Importance is protected and enhanced, where possible, when developing plans for the area.

Associated projects: Local Development framework Highways Local implementation Plan (LIP) Links to the Olympic park (GOAL project) Woodland trust access improvement Partners / supportive organisation / funders: London Development Agency Thames Gateway London Partnership GLA Groundwork East London Redbridge Cycling group Sustrans LB Havering Woodland Trust Corporation of London London Borough of Barking and Dagenham London Borough of Havering Governance: Project Manager: LBR Strategy and Policy Manager (Stefania Horne initially) Client: LBR Culture, sport and Community learning, LBR Engineering and building service, LB Havering Sponsors: Delivery Agency Procurement led by LBR. Delivery by private contractors

Delivery capacity: LB Redbridge Project feasibility: The project would be partially implemented by 2007 but without further funding there will be no links amongst individual projects and no improved links between greenspaces.

Development plan – Nov 06-Mar07 Outline designs – Mar-May- 2007 Detailed designs – June-Aug 07 Tender – Aug-Oct 07 Implementation – 2007/2009 Long term management scenarios: Revenue Requirements Possible new revenue requirement after the restoration of HFCP to be met by LBR revenue budget Long term management scenarios: Agency adoption The new infrastructure for cycling and walking routes will be maintained through existing budgets within LBR and other partners. A growth bid has been prepared by LBR to support the new development at Hog Hill

Land ownership: Land owned by project partners Location: TQ 5086 SE Size: Over 20 miles of interlinked path and cycle and other access routes, connections of over 300ha of open spaces Budget status: Project development (costed in outline): c£300k Capital costs: £2,700,000 Sustrans is actively fund-raising for the cycling links.

Woodland Trust has > £2m to purchase key sites on east and north to guarantee links to Epping Forest and Hainault Forest. LDA is investing over £4m to develop facilities at Hog Hill. There is also potential S. 106 money from developers Next steps: Feasibility has been undertaken in a fragmented way within the cluster projects. There is a need of a development plan that links related projects together and maximises opportunities

33

Phase One – Project Details Associated projects: Roding Through Redbridge: Ray House & Roding Flood Risk Management Strategy. Project follows on from Roding through Ilford/Lower Roding Regeneration Partners / supportive organisation / funders: Partner: LB Redbridge Funder: DCLG Sustainable Communities Fund Governance: Project Manager: Rebecca O’Shea Client Organisation: The Environment Agency Project Sponsors: Roding Through Redbridge Partnership Delivery Agency: Environment Agency Land ownership: LB Redbridge, legal agreement to be drawn up Location: OS Grid: East 542060 North 192377 Planning issues / designations: Land Drainage Consent Budget status: £210,000 secured funding for 2.1.01 Aston Brook.

Other projects require a total of £500,000. EA funding for these is is dependent on the outcome of Roding Flood Risk Management Strategy Next Steps: Currently at Options Appraisal stage. Next step will be feasibility study and design for preferred option Project feasibility: Ashton Brook project currently being implemented, other project should follow 2008-2009

View towards the A406 at Ilford Golf Course

2.7.09 Land opposite Wanstead Park This project is one of a series of projects to enhance the upper Roding as set out in the ‘Roding Flood Risk Management Strategy’.

Relocating the flood bund will allow an area of land to flood, creating a flood meadow habitat, and flood storage space. An area of approximately 12ha of recreation grounds, allotments and woodland lies landward of the bund along this 1km stretch.

Repositioning the bund adjacent to the A406 embankment will reinsate this 12 ha as functional floodplain. It is also proposed to create backwaters and a series of ponds within the area which would provide valuable habitat.

Other projects in this cluster will take a similar approach to managing flood risk, and include other 34

enhancements to habitat diversity by excavating backwaters into the Roding channel and reinstating river bends.

The projects will create an exemplar site on the Roding close to the proposed visitors centre (Ray House) which can be used to showcase flood attenuation and habitat creation.

Long term management scenarios: Replacement of flood bund will be designed to result in minimal increase in management costs

Phase One – Project Details Arboricultural Services Governance: Project Manager: David Theakston Client: LB Barking & Dagenham Sponsors: Allan Aubrey, Head of Leisure Arts & Olympics. Cllr. Val Rush, Executive Member and Portfolio Holder for Parks.

Delivery Agency: LBBD Parks & Leisure Development Land ownership: Key streets (A12, A13 etc) owned by TfL. Remaining streets all owned by LBBD (some Highways, some Housing & Health) Budget status: £2,500,000 2006-08 Delivery capacity: LBBD Parks & Leisure Development Project feasibility: 2006/08 Long term management scenarios: The proposal to plant circa 1,139 new trees indicates an increased establishment maintenance implication of £175,000 per year for the first year, followed by a lifelong increased maintenance implication of £70,000.

This increase will be funded through a combination of: Efficiency savings, S.106 agreements and commercial sponsorship Project adoption: TfL, LBBD Arboricultural Services and LBBD Highways/ Housing & Health Ripple Road from Abbey Green (above) to Lancaster Avenue

2.8 Tree Lined Streets The LBBD Parks & Green Spaces Strategy includes an outline Landscape Framework Plan, which proposes: A connected network of parks, green spaces, river corridors, woodlands and tree-lined streets closely associated with a comprehensive footpath and cycle network. This includes ‘extensive tree planting along streets to form a network of ‘green streets’, ‘connect existing tree-lined streets, parks, and provide green routes for pedestrians and cyclists’. The tree-lined streets in the first phase of the Epping Forest and River Roding area will link with the Green Grid Projects, and will include signage/interpretation.

Next steps: Initial feasibility and internal consultation as part of the development of a Landscape Framework Plan has occurred. Further

consultation through LBBD Executive as part of Local Development Framework is proposed along with specific consultations through Community Forums and local area groups.

Associated projects: LBBD Parks & Green Spaces Strategy LBBD emerging Urban Design Framework (including the Landscape Framework Plan) GLA Trees & Woodlands Strategy and LBBD emerging Trees & Woodlands Strategy.

LBBD Local Development Framework LBBD Transportation Local Implementation Plan Partners / supportive organisation / funders: TfL, LBBD Highways, Housing & Health and 35

View towards the Barking Creek Barrage

36

Forward Strategy

This section concludes the Area Framework with a series of recommendations for further action, including funding and governance arrangements.

37

Forward Strategy – Gap Analysis Gap Analysis The projects identified in the rolling list seek to deliver the strategic opportunities for the Roding Valley and Epping Forest area.

Gap analysis reveals opportunities for the development of further aspirational projects where currently no projects are identified. These projects would enhance the strategic open space offer of the area and help fill the gaps within the strategic framework. These projects can be described in the following two categories: – Active uses and destinations: These projects should be developed to create a new and revitalised visitor offer, that can provide facilities for local district and metropolitan use. The principal opportunities exist in Fairlop Plain, Havering Country Park, the Roding Valley at Ray Park and Barking Town Centre/ Cross River Park and in Epping Forest at Wanstead Flats and Barn Hoppit. These destinations would enhance the principal north south strategic corridors within the Roding Valley Strategic Framework – Additional links: There is also the opportunity to create project specific east west links between the Lea Valley, Epping Forest, the Roding Valley and Fairlop Plain to connect these regional and metropolitan resources with the local and district open space resources that are located inbetween.

38

Identified projects

Strategic gaps in area projects

Strategic gaps in links

Project recommendations

Recommendations for active uses

Projects to improve Access to Nature

Forward Strategy – Recommendations The main thrust of the Area Framework is to: – create enhanced multifunctional open space network utilising existing and new green grid infrastructure – improve physical and intellectual access and connection for local and wider communities to the open space assets within the framework area with a particular focus on areas of open space deficiency – Mitigate and adapt to impacts of climate change within this area of east London.

The principal objectives are to: – conserve and enhance the character and biodiversity of the semi-natural woodland, heath, grassland and ponds in particular in the north of the area – address the identified public open space deficiency of the area in particular in the south of the area through metropolitan parks – maintain a balance between a romantic pastoral landscape for quiet contemplation and a recreational landscape for outdoor pursuits in the north of the sub-area – sensitively manage and restore woodland and ponds and promote traditional management techniques such as pollarding – that all recreational activities, including organised walks and horse riding should be sensitive to and respectful of the natural environment in particular in Epping Forest – preserve the industrial and maritime heritage in the south of the area – link town centres using parks or tree lined streets as a link if necessary.

The area framework is focused on the physical side of the green grid and hence future community engagement will need to be developed, particularly with the more disadvantaged communities in the framework area. This will hopefully be supported

by Groundwork London’s Intereg bid and perhaps a major application under BIG Lottery Access to Nature programme which is open for application in Jan 2008.

The initial community based tasks will be an audience development plan plus an agreed community engagement framework for the metropolitan park focussed projects, in particular.

There are some key access projects in the framework. The three key ones are the Greenway to link Lower Lea and Lower Roding, connection of Epping Forest to Upper Lea Valley and Fairlop Plain east west connections. The overall impact of this will be to provide more varied opportunities for people to explore the major river corridors.

Overview of the Programme The short term proposals are encapsulated within the Phase 1 programme, these have been selected on the basis of various parameters with deliverability as a key consideration. Further projects will undergo the same analysis prior to inclusion in later implementation phases. There is a need for certain projects to be branded to build awareness amongst a wider set of stakeholders.

In the Medium/Long Term our proposals will have a close strategic fit with our vision and objectives, improving quality of open space offer. Examples of such projects include the Roding Valley Metropolitan Park projects and Fairlop Plain.

Funding Phase 1 of our programme has been compiled largely on the basis of deliverability – in other words projects where the funds are substantially in place or where a credible bidding strategy has already been developed. And importantly where there is a project sponsor willing and able to see the project through to completion.

Area 2’s plans for a first phase of delivery over the next 3 years have been costed at over £23M. A good deal of funding is already in place and several bids have been submitted to various sources. This does however remain an ambitious programme.

In later phases land acquisition costs may make a significant impact for certain projects such as the Roding Valley Metropolitan Park. Groundwork London’s recent Intereg IV bid includes a capital allocation of £300k of EU support for projects within the area framework and significant bid to central government for Fairlop Plain (£2.5M) forms part of LB Redbridge’s Programme of Development.

A number of potential future funding sources have been identified, including planning gain, LTGDC, BIG Lottery major projects schemes, Heritage Lottery Fund, Local authority capital programmes, Key stakeholders capital programmes, Landfill Tax, further phases CLG growth area funding for the Thames Gateway, further European funding via Groundwork London and private sector sponsorship.

In the immediate future, the Steering Group will prepare a funding strategy and will actively pursue capital funding opportunities.

Project Delivery As with any physical development of land, individual site constraints will need to be identified and overcome before projects can proceed. Principal

amongst these are land assembly, access, legal encumbrances and planning. By their nature, these will need to be tackled on a project by project basis, with project managers taking responsibility for negotiating and obtaining the necessary acquisitions and permissions.

Diverse ownership in the Roding Valley Metropolitan Park, will be a key issue in the ability to achieve the necessary land assembly requirements.

This has been elevated by the impact of housing demand in London, leading to planning policy shifts that favour residential developments at some locations. A detailed assessment will therefore need to be undertaken in the next phase of feasibility work.

The final pedestrian and cycle routes for the Roding Valley Metropolitan Park will need to recognise these constraints. There are however a number of key landowners who will be important in the delivery of this particular project such as Thames Water who are responsible for the Beckton works.

Planning designation constraints will need to be reviewed in selected areas at the next stage. In term of the Roding Valley Metropolitan Park opportunity there may need to be specific planning guidance.

The major delivery agents for the phase 1 programme are in place. Individual project owners are responsible for their own implementation and will no doubt have detailed project appraisal and management procedures embedded in their own organisations. Whilst in the short term this may be satisfactory, as the programme grows some form of more in depth overall programme management may be needed. Light touch programme management reviews will form part of the agendas for quarterly partnership meetings.

It is suggested that a performance management framework should be created centrally for the ELGG programme.

Stakeholder and Community Engagement Organisational stakeholders have been actively engaged in the preparation of the Framework through direct involvement in the Steering Group. This process will continue in future, with efforts being made to increase membership from a wider range of organisations and by ensuring that meetings continue to be held on a quarterly basis.

It will be evident from our description of the projects that there is huge scope for direct involvement of communities in shaping the green grid and working with us on implementation. In this way, a real sense of ownership will be engendered.

39

Forward Strategy – Recommendations As a consequence each project will have its own community engagement requirements. In terms of the metropolitan park projects and in particular the Roding Valley Metropolitan Park a number of the suggestions within the recent Lower Lea Valley Park Design Framework could be applicable.

Groundwork East London has also applied for funding to the EU under the Intereg IV programme for a four year post that will manage the community engagement for a number of the projects within the framework. The first task for this post will be to create the community engagement framework for the major projects within the programme. Using existing Groundwork London funding we have already undertaken a number of community based projects looking at raising awareness of the River Roding and its role within the locality.

Programme Management Project sponsors vary in their potential to manage and deliver projects- although all of those with projects in Phase 1 have a sufficient level of capability and capacity. The Steering Group will give careful consideration to the additional support project owners will need to ensure projects are delivered according to the basic project management criteria – on time, within budget and according to specification.

This is likely to focus on resourcing and capacity and by offering training in project management, providing access to project management IT systems, backed by advice and support on a project by project basis.

A central performance management framework may be advisable.

Partnership members will build on their existing knowledge of projects within the framework so as to maximise joint working opportunities and ensure that the frameworks objectives are clearly communicated to interested parties.

We recognise the value of setting parameters by which the success of the programme can be measured and evaluated. This will require the definition of a set of outputs and intended impacts.

The outputs are likely to be simple metrics such as area of land upgraded, length of paths laid etc, which, when set against cost and time, will provide an indication of the efficiency of programme delivery.

Impacts are, by their nature, more subtle, as they attempt to capture the benefits to the area in social, environmental and economic terms. We will discuss with Design for London and our colleagues in other areas whether it would be preferable to define performance measures at sub-regional level, to 40

allow benchmarking and comparison. Performance monitoring is likely to be carried out at area level and form part of the standard information for consideration by the steering group.

The Project Implementation Framework represents a large and complex programme of diverse projects spanning at least a decade. Management of this programme is a task beyond the capacity of the Steering Group at present. Additional support, in terms of staff and systems would be required to perform this task competently. The nature of individual projects presents additional challenges, they vary considerably in the proposed source of funding, the status and capacity of the sponsor and the extent to which sponsors are currently ‘bought in’ to the Green Grid concept.

Longer Term Management The process of identifying and defining the projects and preparing a Project Implementation Framework tended to concentrate on the short to medium term issues of specification, appraisal and delivery of the projects. During this process, members of the Steering Group also drew attention to the need to identify responsibility for long term management of the asset once it has been created. In most cases, a managing agent is already in place, however in some it will need to be created, and in all cases their will be maintenance costs which may not form part of the initial funding package. We are aware of various financial structures that exist elsewhere for the management of parks and open spaces and we will examine these carefully to find a structure compatible with the needs of the green grid in our area. It is anticipated that there will be an increasing complexity of long term management arrangements in respect of the Roding Valley Metropolitan Park.

Accessibility issues along the length of the Roding Valley Way

41

Appendices – Baseline Description Public open space This map illustrates the distribution of public open space within the Roding Valley and Epping Forest area.

The open space typologies are set out in accordance with the London Plan. These are determined by type of park, approximate size and indicative catchments area. The areas of private open space identified are generally areas of farmland within the Green Belt or schools or recreation grounds.

This area is characterised by swathes of open space in north south direction that follow the Roding Valley. In the north of the area there is also a higher percentage of private open space, that is in agricultural use or at a stage of gravel extraction.

Regional Parks Metropolitan Parks

Park Deficiencies This map illustrates the deficiency in access to open space. Particularly related to access to Metropolitan Parks. However the proposed creation of two new Metropolitan Parks by merging Goodmayes Park and Mayesbrook Park and the other along the banks of the River Thames with Cross River Park will resolve this deficiency.

Existing Regional Parks Existing Metropolitan Parks

District Parks

Regional Park Opportunities

Local Parks and Open Spaces

Metropolitan Park Opportunities

Small Open Spaces

Tidal Flood Risk

Regional Park Deficiency

Linear Parks

Fluvial Flood Risk

Metropolitan Park Deficiency

Private Open Space

42

Flood Risk This map illustrates the indicative tidal and fluvial flood plains within the Roding Valley and Epping Forest area. In the north of the study area the risk is predominantly created by the River Roding and Seven Kings Water. The flooding potential of the river extends to areas immediately adjacent to the watercourse. In many cases localised flood alleviation can be implemented as part of Green Grid projects for instance decanalising the river courses and reintroducing naturalised river banks, meanders and vegetation. In the south of the area the influence of the River Thames and the potential for tidal flooding is more severe with large areas adjacent to the River Thames at risk compounded as the River Roding discharges into the Thames.

Appendices – Baseline Description Areas of Deficiency in Access to Nature This map illustrates the deficiency in access to nature within this part of the East London Green Grid. The north of the area has a number of sites that are of metropolitan and borough importance and several sites of special scientific interest. However the area around Clayhill Park, Chigwell and Ilford are deficient and the Green Grid projects seek to address this deficiency through the inclusion of new access points to existing sites, improving the biodiversity of existing sites and improved pedestrian access around the perimeter of existing sites.

SSSI SE England SINC Metropolitan

Ecological and Landscape zones This map illustrates the underlying geological conditions of this part of the East London Green Grid.

The sites of metropolitan and borough importance for nature conservation are also illustrated. The northern part of the Roding Valley and Epping Forest area is predominately clays with sandy hilltops around Fairlop Plain and Wanstead Flats. Further south the geological substrata gives way to isolated areas of loams and around the river valleys floodplain soils predominate. Much of the river corridors are also classified as sites of metropolitan importance for nature conservation and many of the sites of borough importance are located adjacent to the river corridors or on the metropolitan fringe.

Chalk soils

SINC Borough 1

Gravel and sandy hilltops

SINC Borough 2

Clays

SINC Local

Loams

Deficiency in Access to Nature

Low level gravels

Sites to reduce areas of deficiency

Floodplain soils

43

Appendices – Group Membership Sub-area chair Matthew Carrington

Matthew.carrington@groundworkeastlondon.org

As Director of Development, Groundwork East London Matthew is currently responsible for managing the Trust’s development programme that delivers environmental and social regeneration in deprived areas within the London borough’s of Hackney, Barking and Dagenham, Havering and Newham, Waltham Forest and Redbridge. In the last few years he has successfully completed a number of major capital projects, including working with Design for London on Gillett Square, the first public space to be launched as part of the Mayor of London’s public space programme. He also has extensive experience of building effective partnerships with particular interest in heritage based regeneration work. Prior to this he worked in the private sector for 10 years with Hanson plc where he was an environment manager who oversaw the capital programme on the company’s waste management sites across London and the South east.

As a long term resident of Hackney, he is involved with a number of organisations that seek to improve the lives of deprived communities where he lives. Matthew has a degree in Environmental Engineering.

Members Angus Kelly * Carol Embury Charlie Thompson Chris Neilan Claire Cadman Crispin D. Webber Darryl Newport David Anstey * David Cole Dave Hobbs David Theakston David Whittaker Emily Reynolds Imogen Wilde * Janet Wilkinson Jennifer Adams Jenny Scholfield Jill Sterry Jim Nolan John Turkson Matthew Maple

angus.kelly@thameswater.co.uk carol.embury@xch.redbridge.gov.uk charles.thompson@environment-agency.gov.uk cneilan@eppingforestdc.gov.uk clairec@essexwt.org.uk dcwebber@aol.com d.j.newport@uel.ac.uk danstey@leevalleypark.org.uk davidcole@tfl.gov.uk david.hobbs@environment-agency.gov.uk david.theakston@lbbd.gov.uk dave.whittaker@newham.gov.uk emily.reynolds@xch.redbridge.gov.uk imogen.wilde@cityoflondon.gov.uk janet.wilkinson@xch.redbridge.gov.uk jennifer.adams@corpoflondon.gov.uk jscholfield@wildlondon.org.uk jill.sterry@thameswater.co.uk jnolan@eppingforestdc.gov.uk john.turkson@xch.redbridge.gov.uk matthew.maple@xch.redbridge.gov.uk

Design for London design advisors Neil Davidson neil@jlg-london.com Neil Davidson studied landscape architecture at Edinburgh College of Art, Heriot Watt University, graduating in 1999 when he joined J & L Gibbons.

Exhibitions of his work include the 1st Barcelona Landscape Biennial and Amfibisch Wonen, Rotterdam. He is a tutor in Diploma Unit 14 at the Architectural Association. Neil became a partner of J & L Gibbons in 2005.

44

Glossary of terms AAP Area Action Plans BAP Biodiversity Action Plan B2B Berwick Woods to Belhus Greenway CRP Cross River Park CPMO Capital Programme Management Office DfL Design for London DPD Joint Development Plan Document EA Environment Agency EECP Eastbrookend Country Park ELGG East London Green Grid EWT Essex Wildlife Trust FALP Further alterations to the London Plan FC Forestry Commission GLA Greater London authority GWEL Groundwork East London HLF Heriatge Lottery Fund LDA London Development Agency LDF Local Development Framework LOOP London Outer Orbital Path LRT Land Restoration Trust LTGP London Thames Gateway Partnership LTGDC London Thames Gateway Development Corporation LWT London Wildlife Trust NE Natural England OAPF Opportunity Area Planning Framework ODA Olympic Delivery Authority PCT Primary Care Trust PPG17 Planning Policy Guidnace note 17 Sport and Recreation PGSS Parks and Green Spaces Strategy SPG Supplementary Planning Guidance S106 Section 106 agreement SRDF Sub Regional Development Frameworks TfL Transport for London TQ Ordanance Survey 100x100km area designation (Including London) UEL University of East London

Credits Authors: Epping Forest and River Roding Area Steering Group and Neil Davidson with Design for London.

Note: All projects identified are considered to be projects of significant benefit to the East London Green Grid. All prioritised projects identified on Project sheets were identified by project owners during Area Steering Group meetings between June and September 2006.

Comments were received on the draft framework between December 2006 and April 2007. A directory of participants is provided in Appendix 2 of this document.

Design for London