Saturday, June 26, 2010

Aggregates, Aggrevates

This is a cross-post from Redbridge Eye. The "feedback form" it refers to is THE most user unfriendly document I have EVER seen!
Were you aware that "the Council is committed" to providing HALF-A-MILLION TONS of aggregates (gravel and ballast) , shared with Havering? Most of the proposed areas for additional mineral extraction are to the north of Forest Road (private sports grounds). Area 3 and 4 Councillors are on the case. There is a consultation exercise and you can support or reject the proposals (or state 'No Preference') by e-mail to no later than July 26th 2010.

This 'commitment' appears as a "Borough-Wide Primary Policy" in a Development Plan Document of May 2008.

This appears to follow on from a London Aggregates Working Party (LAWP) report that refers (para. 4.9) to a report on Redbridge (LAWP09/03) , which I am unable to locate on the Internet.

As most of the Club Groundsmen working on the north side of Forest Road well know, this area contains poor quality GRIT at a depth of 4 to 6 inches. Most grit nowadays is supplied from rock-crushing plants.

The document that is essential to the Consultation is currently unavailable on-line!

You can send your responses by email: or using the Council’s freepost address at:

Minerals Development Plan:
Issues and Options,
Development Plan Document
London Borough of Redbridge
Ilford IG1 1DD


  1. When I tried to access (from the Redbridge Eye version) the documents "essential to the consultation" yesterday evening (Saturday) a message came up "This document is either unavailable or you do not have permission to access it"! The links now seem to be working but the documents seem to take a long time to download even on fast Broadband.

    Persish the thought that the Council should make it difficult for us to get hold of information!

    If Barkingside 21 did anything to make the documents acessible then thanks are due.

  2. The allotments along Fullwell Avenue are listed as possible source of gravel.
    Ah, if only they were also a source of water.
    Water for gardening is so expensive and some people are watering the ground instead of the growing area of the plants.
    Perhaps, should they wish to pre-drill for gravel assessment, they might come across water instead.
    A negative into a positive.
    What is puzzling me is that they built over our now defunct site across the road, without a thought for the wealth underneath.
    Or did they? And found nothing?