Should we have a seperate area for EUG discussions?

[david123]

[stretch armstrong]

[George Gilbert]

[Plurien]

Facts:
- 1) -correct, with planning conditions attaching won by EUG
- 2) - correct, in every respect and more
- 3) - totally incorrect, but it's very interesting you think it was BC when they only went along with it (How many other people would think that if the NGB approves, it must be OK and in fact it might have been their idea... What does that imply for BCs present actions over the Velopark?)
- 4) - EUG campaigned for a proper replacement that would be within reasonable distance, with measures for those who have to stay local.
You are completely incorrect about the 'without anything for a year', since the agreement made between LDA and EUG (no reference to BC) stated Feb 2007 as the target, with a clause inserted by EUG that LDA would have to provide an interim facility if this were not possible - hence The Royals which was handed to BC on a plate by EUG.

Speculation:
- 5) Wrong - ODA has been told certain things by BC and is now very reluctant to give back the land it has earmarked for building and open space to support that built development.
- 6) see above - Is this is an ODA and BC thing to reduce the size of the provision in return for each party receiving something extra in the development? We have been trying to find out, but it is such a touchy subject for the NGB that it seems unable to explain why it won't just represent the needs of users by first consulting properly with them. Mind you, this might now be difficult as some have such entrenched positions...

Conclusion: GG may be concise, but not really covering the wider key issues that presently confront users:-
- abject lack of consultation and engagement with community most affected by plans
- total disregard for 'Sustainable communities' PPGs and PPS1 guidelines in planning practise
- inability of stakeholder community to engage directly in consulation with developer owing to another body passing itself off as the representative of that community
- 'dynamic' between users and NGB as a result of its activities beyond remit
- inability of NGB to accept that EUG has won so much when it had given prior opinion that facilities could be given up.

Of course if you resolve the history, you might come to understand the present so there's not a lot of difference.

[Gary K]

Then get yourself a website and do us all a favour by posting concisely and constructively on it.

I think just about everyone has said they are in your corner, but you "post" us out of it with the anti BC and general negative tones of each post.

Take the advice that has been dished out a few times - post your facts and K.I.S.S.

[dockeca]

I agree with gary, what is needed is a website on which EUG (still don't know who are the members or indeed if it is actually a constituted body, or an informal group, in which case who is speaking for who?), can place their press releases, open a forum for discussion, etc. No doubt someone would post a link from the other sites, so that it could all be considered as a body of information, not scattered comment and various attacks on BC, anyone who disagrees, etc.
the campaign has momentum, and a proper website setting out the EUG case would bring much better ppublic credibility than the present activity.
_________________
Doc

"Any views expressed are entirely my own and not representative of any organisation of which I may or may not be a member. Unless I say otherwise."
"A Libertarian Crackpot" H.Peel

[George Gilbert]

[Killer C]

I refer to the original post ...

[KJ]

[Billy Boy]

[Plurien]

GG - We do give a lot of monkeys about who said what to back-up the developer in its wish to reduce the velopark down to the paltry size it is now intended to be.
We also care that a negotiation about how the fiasco can be mitigated appears to accept the base idea of its reduction. (see comment about which organisation sourced Rammey Marsh)

Of course the developer wants to give a lot less land; it needs to see payback for its contractor with whom it as a $10bn contract with get-out extending to 2019. Those pesky cyclists are out of the way, now what shall we say to get our plans across, and to whom shall we say it?

If it could only find a body in cycling that would allow it to take that land. It knows the users won't give it up, so who to call....?

- This directly relates to meetings in September and October 2006 which you will note is before Eastway closed.
So you see, there is a lot of point in following on about the process which ensued to devalue London's Olympic legacy as far as Eastway users are concerned.

To test the hypothesis: What would be the implications if it was found that BC knew about the reduction and commented favourably or 'agnostically' upon it?
What have been the outcomes since BC decided not to oppose the developer's plans?
Why has BC not taken the policy decision to put the users' needs higher amongst those other demands which come from the ODA in relation to the cycle disciplines?
Why is BC so reluctant to meet with EUG to discuss this issue?
Why did BC get itself into such a state at the board meeting where the EUG resolutions and the views of its largest region to the legacy plans were discussed?
Why does BC accept that the circuit now has to cross and re-cross the A12, when the only point of that ever appearing in any plan had to do with the velodrome being to the N of the A12 and the park to its S?
Where is BC's policy to shout out for mountainbike competition facilities back on the site? (and no, we don't think that 'occasional events in the wider park' is adequate provision for that)

This isn't a simple case of 'if you're not fir us, you're against us' is it? BC has a number of demands from different parties, but it has to come up with a solution which meets the needs of all parties. If the 34ha velopark plan existed before and was 'at the heart of London's bid', there has to be a strong case for sticking with the plan as it is so much in BC's interest.
- What has caused BC to allow this plan to be dropped? Either it was involved in the discussions, or it wasn't. Which is the best of these twins of evil?

Given the fact of so many unanswered questions, do you think it is reasonable for users to be wanting answers in order to know how best to move things towards a satisfactory outcome? - Do you have any answers?

[KJ]

Cut the rhetoric. We've heard it all before ad nauseum.

Answer GG'Ss question.

'The key questions now are "who was the *first* person / body who suggested shrinking the Eastway land, and why?". '

[Ingatestonian]

[Plurien]

How the hell are we supposed to know?

It could be the ODA, local government, the contractors intending to bid - anyone who can see more commercial value being realised from the development.

How very odd for the ODA/LDA not to include land values in its costings and accounts for the Games.

The point when it comes to cycle sport and legacy for Eastway is that there was a 34ha plan with all the disciplines and now there is 7ha with only one nationally-important facility. In the context of this forum, the NGB did not reject the plan outright and has sought mitigation directly against the wishes of the users and the intent of the planning conditions.
- What were BCs possible reasons for doing this and when did it first know of the changes?
- This is not a rhetorical question, as we want very real answers please.

[KJ]

[Ingatestonian]

[Plurien]

KJ - Are you the pressure group on the pressure group then? !-)

You're able to make a Freedom of Information application at any time. Please go ahead, and like many other people do, if you find out anything that could be of use in making the case for a proper legacy please let me know.

[George Gilbert]

[Plurien]

Why not ask of the ODA for yourself George?
Just how knowing the kernel of information you seek would affect the debate we're in now is really not clear. The main influence holding back the users' case from being made is the very real support being lent by BC to the developer for its plans. The plans were adjusted for whatever reason, but the subsequent support received from the developer's chosen partner in cycling disciplines has done the real damage because it allowed to idea to go forwards into a real plan as published on 6 Feb.
So for that reason, it's more important for us to get the answer to the question already asked;-

Please can BC let us know when it first learned of the plans to scale back the velopark?

[Ingatestonian]

I have to disagree George. How and why this came about is largely irrelevant.