Should BC object to the latest legacy plans?

[ldncycle]

[quote="Brian Cookson"]Ah, I see, I'm supposed to be Michael Howard to your Jeremy Paxman. I really can't be bothered with your silly games Michael. If it makes you feel good, just carry on and insert whatever replies you want from me. It's more or less what you do anyway.

Sorry I'm as bored with this now as most of the rest of veloriders......[/quote]

Bored!! This is just getting interesting.

Still haven't answered any of the questions though.

[Brian Cookson]

John - it is quite clear in the current and previous statements that BC does not consider the plans to be acceptable and that we are continuing to work towards a better plan by the use of a different strategy from that which you support. The legal and professional advice that we have received is clear that we are most likely to achieve the result that you, we and others would like to see, i.e. a bigger, better legacy of cycling facilities, by adopting this strategy.

I have lost count of how many times I have repeated this. I can only conclude that you do not wish to understand. That is your choice. Your "question" is nonsensical, since we, like you, do not accept that the revised plans are an appropriate replacement for the old and have said so.

I don't expect to change your mind since it is clearly made up.

Goodnight.

Brian.

[Brian Cookson]

[Plurien]

and please don't patronise me either, Brian.

By all means let others decide for you, but I'd prefer to have the answer to the easy question from you directly and in your own words.

That way we're all informed and we're not hiding behind whatever preconception or fallacy is blocking the view. Also, there's no lasting impression that you rely on the ad hominem exclusively in bringing a debate to a satisfactory point of agreement.

Is there one thing that BC has done for Eastway's riders since 2003?

[Lee]

[quote="Brian Cookson"]Ah, I see, I'm supposed to be Michael Howard to your Jeremy Paxman. I really can't be bothered with your silly games Michael. If it makes you feel good, just carry on and insert whatever replies you want from me. It's more or less what you do anyway.

Sorry I'm as bored with this now as most of the rest of veloriders......[/quote]

You can count me in with that. I'm sick to death of it. Posters that are just here regurgitating the same argument on countless threads. Twisting what is said by others and portraying personal opinion and conjecture as fact. And resorting to insults to anyone that doesn't agree with them and their narrowminded views. I really don't give a toss anymore about the plight of eastway users and to be honest I wouldn't care if come 2013 the velodrome is bulldozed for flats and their is no legacy. Am I alone in that? The way people on here have postted has done nothing to raise support or sympathy.
_________________

[Hans Datdodishes]

[quote="Lee"]

[Roy Gardiner]

[Hans Datdodishes]

I'm not being negative Roy. I'm just speaking as a property professional with 15+ years experience of both the planning system and negotiations with landlords, including the Crown Estate, and to read someones claims that the Crown Estate would only give a 25 year lease on Hog Hill is misleading to say the least
_________________
World Masters Drive HillClimb For Taureans Category C Champion 2013.

I'm a qualified coach.

[Plurien]

The Crown Estate would only let the LDA have the site on a 25 year lease, and that is not a bad thing. EUG never signed on anything except the agreement to secure the facility and to have continuity by provision of the The Royals. Non-delivery on these items is not an EUG-related issue, since we obviously want to get our sport on right now.
Rammey Marsh was totally unsuitable since, if you recall, it offered NO mountainbike competition facility, was too far away, too polluted and too near to a motorway. End of story. Forget about Rammey Marsh - it went in the bin and rightly so, everyone agreed apart from a very few die-hards.
LDA handled the negotiations with the Crown Estate since they were principal. There are many advantages of having a longer lease, and many have remarked upon the expense of provision and the waste if it's all to go at the end of 7 years. That possible extension may be a benefit, we are all agreed on that, but it's not to come instead of legacy provision.
It's either a good thing for BC to announce Hog Hill 'might be made permanent' or it isn't. Either way, BC announced it, not EUG. But it doesn't alter the fact that LB Redbridge is able to make a later decision on revenue funding and that the length of lease remaining may be just enough to secure funding via other bodies (though we doubt it). Nothing in Redbridge is guaranteed so it would be very foolish to accept that as provision to replace what's been lost.
None of this background to the relocation element alters the fact that the strategy - a planning instrument - was about relocation and legacy. Having resolved the relocation (well, when it's finally resolved and not in botched limbo) the focus has shifted to the legacy only because the ODA has made application for detail and outline plans which will govern the next 13 years of the former Eastway site. It is this phase in which Eastway's riders are calling for solid support.
Planning conditions that were won remain unaffected in terms of the material reasons for them being given and users are asserting that the conditions should be considered still to apply. The Olympic Act is definite on this too.
The relocation has been resolved in favour of the users, by users and so much the better for anyone who wants to do the sort of riding that was available at Eastway and which had to be relocated. Anyone who thinks there was a choice in how the relocation could be managed wasn't there offering support at the time, and anyhow, it probably couldn't have been negotiated in any other way because that was tried.
This debate is about how the interests of cycle sport can best be protected in the legacy phase where the last two years have seen a plan go from 34ha down to a tiny 'token' presence. The reasons why Eastway was good still hold true and of all the sports in London's Olympics it should be those disciplines which come right up the list in legacy - because they were lost for the Games to be built and because they were so popular, accessible and successful on a site where you might least have expected to find mountainbiking, road race and time trial.

One more thing to think about:
By even suggesting that Hog Hill can replace what has been lost in legacy phase, you are laying your provision open to a 'London-wide' strategy which would see Herne Hill close, Crystal Palace denied and Hillingdon allowed to drift since, as you have said, 'there is Hog Hill nearby'. EUG would come to help you at that juncture, but the precedent and the negotitating tactic will have been conceded by the words of those like Hans who may think that what they want in the process is secure. Believe me, nothing is secure in the process and it does us all no good to think that and stop when the thing you want the most seems to be safe.
For this reason alone, it is important for the cycle sport interests to be united and forthright in securing the full legacy due after such a loss.

That is why it would be useful for BC to state the positives of what it has done and to come back towards some kind of rapprochement with the people who did Olympic cycle sport in E London. I want Brian to be positive and have invited him to say just one thing about the period since 2003.

[Dan Souf]

"By even suggesting that Hog Hill can replace what has been lost in legacy phase, you are laying your provision open to a 'London-wide' strategy which would see Herne Hill close, Crystal Palace denied and Hillingdon allowed to drift since, as you have said, 'there is Hog Hill nearby'"


evidence of this?

[Hans Datdodishes]

[Dan Souf]

I agree Hans, what I meant was, where is the evidence to support this claim.

[Plurien]

Many separate sources and the general tone in meetings, plus the simple negotiating expediency of knowing that riders actually need to get sites.

Letter from the Mayor 13 March 2007:
"The London Development Agency (LDA) has secured planning permission for a new road cycle circuit and off-road provision at Hogg Hill and this is scheduled to open in the Summer. It has taken a little more time than was originally expected to secure the site and as a result this has unfortunately disrupted this year's road riding season. However on a positive note the LDA will now be designing the circuit and off road provision as a permanent rather than temporary facility and are in positive discussions with the London Borough of Redbridge on how this venue can be extended through additional revenue funding beyond 2012.

London 2012 VeloPark Legacy Plans
The Mayor is working closely with LOCOG and the ODA to ensure that Olympic plans for the Games and importantly post games legacy are thoroughly researched and planned. The Mayor is keen to ensure that post Games, the Olympic Park and sports venues meet Londoner's needs and deliver a true legacy for sport, active recreation
and cultural pursuits."
- notice how the issue of legacy MTB provision is 'rolled-up' in the explanation of the relocation site. This is a textual variant on the earlier letter from David Higgins and even has an extra line-break as if it's been inserted after the main bulk of the letter which came in email.

And the BC London Strategy Document of December 2005:-
"Eastway is unique and it is vital to the sustainability of cycle sport in London. Its replacement on a like for like basis is impossible in the time available, and so we need a flexible and imaginative approach to solving the problem. No single venue is available, but by seeking out other sites that can offer solutions to some of the problems and combining the solutions we can move forward. London will gain from the Olympics, that is unquestionable, and cycling in London will gain more than most of the other sports. We get a new Velodrome, and a new Velopark post 2012, and the Eastway relocation process has forced us to look at other venues to enable our sport to continue. In the lead up to the Games we gain a new circuit at Rammey Marsh, and we can also gain increased usage and development at Crystal Palace, further development at Herne Hill and the identification of new off road sites elsewhere in London. "
Now this can be interpreted as being only about the relocation, but the subsequent dealings with BC, Sport England and LDA indicate that there is a wider game being played, particularly since Crystal Palace and Herne Hill are either owned or financed by the LDA. BC's policy document wasn't drafted in a vacuum - the LDA and Sport England will at least have been consulted.

[George Gilbert]

[Hans Datdodishes]

[Plurien]

Very good item in today's Independent:-
http://motoring.independent.co.uk/features/article2372366.ece

Hans - By your map-radius logic there would be no problem in replacing Eastway in full.

Get real. Read the text above, think about who's paying for Herne Hill, when its current three-year lease ends, when another lease might end (if there is a renewal). Think about who owns Crystal Palace and the development plans that have been made for it. Look at the money that would be needed from Sport England in the London region for any subsequent development or maintenance and think about all the money that's being poured into London now, with a regional adjustment due for many years to come. Read about the comments made by sports organisations outside London on their fears for fuding cuts and then think about the difficulty of seeking funding in London post-2012.

[Doozer]

[Plurien]

Not something that I would propose as a sound strategy. BC has a strong role to play and should command respect for its services to riders who want to compete or to ride for leisure.
It happens that I only organise events under BC, but I can see there is validity in some other codes. Anyone is free to make a service offering. BC recently spent a bit of effort promoting its services as the insurer of choice and explaining what some of its other funds went into. No problem there: I hold Gold membership, proposed a deal between BC and LVRC recently and organise events only under BC.

Of course I would like to see BCs advocacy focused in certain areas...

This poll is about whether BC should oppose the Olympic legacy applications as the basis of support it can offer to those who rode at Eastway. If BC didn't matter, there wouldn't be any poll.

[Plurien]

Things coming in all the time today...

George Monbiot in The Guardian:
"This isn't a consultation; it's a stitch-up. Even the great crested newts living where the ODA will build a cycle track have been given more time to object: their champions had six months to respond to the plans for relocation. But local people have been granted as much real influence over the future of their communities as the villagers flooded by China's Three Gorges Dam. If £9.4bn were really being spent for their benefit, you would have thought they would have some say in the matter."
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/columnist/story/0,,2038110,00.html

Doesn't get the six months bit right, but the overall tone is pretty damning of the process.

[KJ]

Mmm...best read the whole article. That paragraph is just an illustration of the steam roller tactics of the ODA.