Cycling Forums UK : www.veloriders.co.uk :: View topic - BC Mission Statement

Home FAQ Register Usergroups Search Memberlist Gallery StatisticsForum Sponsors •  Photo RequestProfile • Links Log in to check your private messagesLog inBC Eastmidlands

BC Mission Statement
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
 
Post new topic   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    Cycling Forums UK : www.veloriders.co.uk Forum Index -> Polls
View previous topic :: View next topic  

Should BC have a mission statement?
YES
30%
 30%  [ 14 ]
NO
17%
 17%  [ 8 ]
Not bothered
52%
 52%  [ 24 ]
Total Votes : 46

Author Message
KJ
T de F Winner


Joined: 18 May 2005
Posts: 26400

PostPosted: Mon Apr 30, 2007 10:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Plurien wrote:
You have to differentiate between the internal musings within our sport administration and the need for a robust defence of its needs in public and officialdom.

It would be loads better if the users and the national governing body of their sport could be in agreemeent.

If the support such agreement implies doesn't come, that's no reason not to continue to with the action to secure a proper relocation and a full legacy which would improve upon what's been lost.

There are instances where the NGB has backed the developers proposals which users absolutely do not support. To not gain the backing of your NGB is one thing: To have it in opposition to users' interests is quite another. Remember that users never objected to the loss of Eastway. We didn't oppose the Games - why would we?! What we insist on is in our mission, so we can open in our dealings.

Many on the forum here won't believe that the NGB has very little cred for the way its dealt with the planners and officialdom. BC has some who are better at fronting it than others, but on the whole it's been put in a box for its failings. Users appreciate that it needs to retain relations with many of those who've put it there, but the blithe acceptance of some issues has left users in no doubt that they can't rely on it for protection of their interests.

The London Games was supposed to be all about the protection of sporting interests in Inner E London, as well as a catalyst for much-needed development. We had youth groups and clubs using the facility and a very inclusive community. The site was marketed pitifully badly for whatever reason but there's no question it was of local, regional and national importance for what it achieved. Cycling is hugely popular and not a minority sport.
- Take all this into account, and the users have a very strong story to tell which comes across well in the press. If BC isn't able to go with that, fair enough, but users do not feel it is their due to have to fight against the NGB to secure the relocation and replacement they need for their community to sustain.

As an example of the stuff which the wider world sees on this issue;-
________________________________

Eastway Users Group handed in a petition to the Mayor at City Hall on Weds 25th April. With 1893 signatures EUG calls upon the Mayor to use special planning powers to refer the plans under the London Olympic and Paralympics Act 2006.

EUG assembled one of the biggest petitions ever presented and had the sponsorship of Dee Doocey, an elected member of the London Assembly who is the chair of its Committee on Tourism, Culture, Media and Sport. The Assembly Session went on to question the Olympic Delivery Authority about its budget and its plans. The Assembly issued a statement* expressing its dissatisfaction with the ODA's answers on the budget.

The Assembly questioned the ODA panel, which included its chief executive, David Higgins, about the Velopark plans. It was admitted by the ODA that the arrangements to relocate the cycle facility had broken down.

Eastway Users welcome the ODA's commitment to have their new facility at Hog Hill in Hainault open this September and accept the apology that they have been without a faclity since November.

Major concerns centre upon the Olympic Park after the London Games, which sees cycle facilities reduced in size to a site of only 7 hectares instead of the 34ha that London's bid promised. David Higgins stated that the 34 hectares 'hasn't gone away' though he did concede that other things are in the space, so exactly what this means for cycling is unclear. Eastway riders were previously delighted by the 34ha Velopark plan which was announced two days before London's Olympic bid was inspected byu the IOC in 2005. That's the last plan they knew of until those of January 2007 which showed no mountaibike competition facility and the most uninspiring new road circuit anywhere in the country, squashed riught up against the A12 urban motorway. - Hardly an improvement!

Eastway Users Group will be meeting with the ODA and other development partners on 3rd May when it hopes to hear that the detailed and outline plans can be dramatically altered to allow a full legacy return for the Olympic sports of mountainbike, road-race and time-trial.

These Olympic disciplines thrived at Eastway. In 2006 there were six national champions aged under-14 to junior age who raced in its mountainbike series every week. National time-trial and road-race champions were also brought up on Eastway's road circuit. Many school and community groups used the facility for its traffic-free safety and wide open spaces. It really would be a pity to lose a New Eastway since the health benefits of cycling for fun and for sport are so great. An indoor velodrome will be part of the built legacy whatever happens, but the users want to see open-air recreation and sport make a return since it is so much more accessible and welcoming to the beginner as well as a much-needed replacement for what's been lost since Eastway closed nearly six months ago.

Michael Humphreys, chair of the Eastway Users Group comments;- "We've had a real struggle to keep our community in the plans at every turn. Obviously the Olympics always needed the land and we have been very willing to negotiate a relocation and a legacy return. We won planning conditions which protect our interests and secured us a relocation, but the plans also have to include a proper return for the people who were doing Olympic sport since long before London's Games. We're interested to see how the 34hectares can be brought back for us, but we're also becoming tired of delaying tactics and slippage. We've been without a facility for six months and, while we're still without anywhere for events we're also told that we won't be coming back either. It doesn't look good for a Games which said it was about serving more facilities for the E London communities and especially those bringing peope into sport. Let's hope the ODA can eventually get the right ending for this story."

* http://www.london.gov.uk/view_press_release_a.jsp?releaseid=11731



Says who? I'd say that was a pretty insulting statement.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    Cycling Forums UK : www.veloriders.co.uk Forum Index -> Polls All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
Page 8 of 8

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Important Notice: VeloRiders copyrights all images appearing on this website and in the Gallery. Images are displayed for viewing only, and commercial or personal use of any of these images without the written permission of VeloRiders is prohibited under international copyright law. Copyright 2002/2013 VeloRiders. All rights reserved.


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group

E-mail VeloRiders. Comments, questions or send your photos to , Order your photos@

RSS News Feed
aegishosting