Letter of objection to latest Eastway legacy devaluluation

[Plurien]

The latest application for the Olympic Village and Legacy Housing takes a large chunk of what was Eastway. The development also can only satisfy its Open Space requirement by relying on the adjoining land being 'Public Recreation' - That's all land that was Eastway.
British Cycling at Regional and National level is resolved to object. Sport England is on record as objecting to the earlier legacy applications because it leaves a site which is too small.

We need as MANY objections as POSSIBLE. The deadline is 8 Oct. Here's a suggested letter which you can leave in full, or chop to suit.

You can also obviously include your own comments, but remember this is an application on an adjoining site - except where it's been 'expanded' into the area which was Eastway, it's not for the so-called 'velopark' which is a separate plot now the ODA sliced and diced our future to make way for its built development. On with the letter.....

[Plurien]

Head of Development Control
ODA PDT
Mailpoint 32B
23rd Floor
1 Churchill Place
London E14 5LN
By email planning.enquiries@pdt.oda.gov.uk

Dear Sir/Madam
I write to make formal objection to the planning application numbered 07/90153/OUMODA which covers the Olympic Village and Legacy Residential Planning Application on Clays Lane and the Eastway Cycle Circuit.
My reasons for objection are;-
- Loss of Metropolitan Open Land under built development, in contradiction of previous commitments to the London Assembly Plenary of 25th April made by the developer’s Principal.*
- Loss of cycle sport amenity owing to reduction in land area being made available by developers’ various schemes on the former Eastway site not supplying equal or equivalent land area for open space sporting and recreational cycling in an area devoted, created and funded for its pursuit over 30 years.
- Breach of previous and many undertakings made by the applicant and its associated entities on previous approved applications to provide suitable relocation, interim and legacy facilities for those who used the site formerly known as Eastway Cycle Circuit. Such undertakings were made within the statutory framework of planning law and were governed by S106 covenanted agreements and planning conditions, as well as those made in public forum such as Planning Inquiries and to elected bodies with oversight responsibility for the purposes of public accountability, openness and consultational decision-making.
- Failure by the applicant to show how it can reconcile the commitments to replace Eastway Cycle Circuit in legacy with the S106 Open Space commitments made in the above application which will lead to conflict with users who have been supported by other planning authorities that have acknowledged a long-standing requirement to have a facility which offers cycling in an environment free of other open air or public recreations on grounds of public safety.
o This present application must not be allowed to take any open space contribution from the adjoining Legacy Cycle Circuit (sometimes known as the Velopark)
o The Metropolitan Open Land protection that applied to Eastway was designated solely on grounds of the site’s London-wide importance to cycle sport and the site was never intended to be like any other public park in terms of recreation pursuits or general public thoroughfare and access. It was deliberately and consistently kept closed to general public recreation for reasons of safety and to promote cycling on the site for all of London, with riders travelling to it for training, club sessions and competition. The applicant’s Explanatory Statement shows it does not understand the needs of cycle sport in an Inner London facility and its comments should be duly disregarded as uninformed:-
“Whilst the Eastway cycle circuit currently abuts the site it is not publicly accessible by virtue of its *CENSORED* use, boundary fencing and variable terrain. By contrast the Olympic path proposes (sic) will deliver a coherent public open space accessible to all in close proximity to the proposal site.”
- Failure by the developer and the Planning Decisions Team to respond to previous correspondence relating to the loss of Metropolitan Open Land requesting clarification of the terms of the London Olympic and Paralympic Games Act 2006. We maintain the Act binds the Planning Authority to have particular regard for existing planning conditions, to which the LDA covenanted in the following way:-
“Eastway Cycle Circuit Relocation and Legacy Strategy:
The LDA covenants with the Boroughs to use all reasonable endeavours to Comply with the approved Eastway Cycle Circuit Relocation and Legacy Strategy. This is a Strategic Delivery Covenant."
This covenant was made on a detailed strategy which included the provision of a relocation and legacy facility in turn. It stated:-
“The Strategy shall provide the specifications for the Legacy Eastway Cycle Circuit to be created in parkland in the Legacy Construction Phase in order to meet the needs of cycle users and minimise conflict with other park users,through design and use of topography to prevent inappropriate public access to the Legacy Eastway Cycle Circuit”
It is clear from the 2006 Act that the conditions apply to the ODA as successor to the LDA and that the relevant clauses in the Town and Country Planning Acts apply to the former site of Eastway, not to the way in which the site has subsequently been parcelled up for development by the ODA and, in the case of this application its development partner, LendLease Plc, with whom it has made an agreement to provide for built development up until 2019.
We therefore object to the application particularly for its reduction of the protected former Eastway site and:
We object furthermore to the developer’s claim to have made recompense for the loss of Metropolitan Open Land by conducting a ‘land swap’ for MOL to be provided elsewhere when this other land has absolutely no benefit to cycle sport, which the site’s MOL designation was intended to provide in perpetuity as per the Lee Valley Regional Park Authority Act 1966. The Authority received funding by precept on London boroughs for the provision of a cycle facility of London-wide importance. It was not for the Authority to determine, nor for the developer to dispose of the perpetual commitment to cycle sport provision on the Eastway site. This disposal was not intended to lead to temporary loss of amenity in the lead-up to a London Games, since the conditions provided for a relocation. It certainly was not intended to be a permanent loss of MOL, for as was stated to the GLA at the time of the applications which led to Eastway being taken under the LDA agreement with LVRPA:-
“The Eastway Cycle Circuit Relocation and Legacy Strategy will be a detailed strategy to secure the temporary and permanent relocation of the Eastway Cycle Circuit during the, Olympic and Legacy Construction Phases to ensure continuity of use and that suitable replacement facilities are provided. The Strategy will be developed in consultation with the Boroughs, the Lee Valley Regional Park Authority (LVRPA) and users of the circuit. The Strategy will also include appropriate and detailed arrangements to ensure the proper management of the replacement Eastway Cycle Circuit Centre in the Legacy Phase, so as to avoid unacceptable impacts on local amenity, optimise the opportunities for local communities to enjoy appropriate facilities in the replacement Eastway Cycle Circuit and ensure long-term public benefits. Arrangements to encourage and facilitate the quality of life of local communities will be established by developing strong and positive links with those communities, including school incentive schemes and coaching schemes. The Eastway Cycle Circuit management shall not impose a financial burden on the Boroughs without their agreement. This Strategy will be monitored and reviewed every three years.”
Eastway was taken by the developer on this application alone, with the ensuiing Compulsory Purchase Orders Planning Inquiry, by which the developer made commitments to provide a relocation circuit to be open no later than April 2007, with provision of an interim circuit to cover the period from Eastway’s closure in November 2006.
We have been without a circuit since that time.
The developer has failed to meet any of its undertakings on delivery of cycle facilities and so this application and any subsequent application must be refused or only granted with the developer’s commitments to cycle sport as reserved matters until such time as the ODA and LDA can prove to public accountability that they have delivered interim, relocation and suitable legacy provision within the immediate vicinity of the former Eastway site it took for the purpose of the Games and Legacy transformation developments.

Unless you are able to provide satisfactory explanation of why the planning conditions, S106 and covenanted agreements made over Legacy, Relocation and Interim provision made on the ODA and LDA cannot be discharged as I maintain the London Olympic and Paralympic Act 2006 would allow, I would ask that you decline all further applications from this applicant until such time as it can show to the Planning Authority that it is prepared to meet the requirements laid down for development and land assembly that it has already progressed. To allow new applications without requiring the applicant to honour existing conditions and covenants falls outside guidelines laid down in the relevant Circulars.
The applicant has breached my human rights under the relevant European Acts by denying a right to recreation and enjoyment.
It is clear that Eastway was never intended for general open air public recreation as recognised in the planning strategy which stated that inappropriate public access should be denied by fencing and topography. Only the applicant’s wish to bring dense residential development to the site requiring open space commitments has brought this changed requirement. It is the developer’s conceit to divide the site that was Eastway into planning zones for the convenience of its development, which in no way affects the protection afforded by planning law to the whole of Eastway. The planning conditions, the developer’s prior commitments to legacy and the users’ requirements remain constant and should be recognised by your Planning Authority as provided for under the relevant clauses of the Olympic Act of 2006.
I trust you will be minded to recommend to the Planning Committee that the application should be refused.

Yours faithfully,

[Plurien]

* Speech by David Higgins of the ODA to Plenary session of the London Assembly 25 April 2007:-
"In terms of the 34 hectares and the 7 hectares, the 34 hectares has not gone away. It is still the same land; it is still the land on Eaton Manor and the land of the Eastway Cycleway. Now what is going to be on that land will be a BMX track, a Velopark, a public park and hockey pitches and, in addition to what was proposed back in 2005, we are now putting in tennis facilities and other sporting facilities. We are not putting housing on that 34 hectares.”

____________________

From the Environmental and Explanatory Statements in Application 07/90153/OUMODA
“The 4,866 m² (0.49 ha) strip of land comprising part of the southern boundary of the the Eastway Cycle Circuit is expected to be permanently lost. Parameter plans 2 and 3 confirms that buildings will encroach on approximately half of the area, with roads expected to follow the northern alignment of the site.”
“The development will potentially encroach on to designated Metropolitan Open Land in two locations:
• A strip to the north of the existing Clays Lane Estate (approximately 4866m2)
• Land to the west and east of Temple Mill Lane”

__________

Statement made by LDA to the Planning Inquiry on 19th May 2006
"The LDA has agreed to use its reasonable endeavours to provide access to the Hog Hill circuit by April 2007.
“The LDA has also agreed to use its reasonable endeavours to identify a location from within its land ownership capable of accommodating events organised by a winter road racing league for the period between the closure of Eastway and the opening of the replacement facility.”

[Des]

Done Michael.
_________________
www.kentonrc.co.uk

[Plurien]

Today's the last day for formal objections.
We have learned some horrendous news about the Hog Hill site which cannot come out yet, but it's more important to make more noise about any aspect of the Games and its planning now.

[Dave Griffiths]

[mho]

I assume BC are going to send an objection, now you are both working together?

[Plurien]

It's for BC to say what it does and doesn't do, but I'm happy to confirm that I'm pleased with the action being taken on the application by BC. Your assumption is correct.

If you do want to make objection it really will help if you play up the issue of Metropolitan Open Land that was there for cycle sport being lost under the present application.
- They want to build on land that was Eastway! And then they want to use the 'park adjoining' their development as part of the open space for recreation that the people living in their flats can use as a public park. They specifically state that Eastway was no good as a park, and theirs will be better.....!