Objections to Police BaseAlan Cornish |
This page is part of the campaign to
Save the Epping Forest Act.
The Friends of Wanstead Parklands (FWP) is a voluntary body, originally founded in 1980 with the principle aim to promote the understanding of and concern for the historical and natural heritage of Wanstead Park and its future. We currently have 67 paid-up members, but are expanding much due to the issue of a proposed temporary police muster, briefing and deployment centre on Wanstead Flats to support the 2012 Olympic Games: "the police compound". I write as chairman of FWP.
We are opposed in principle to the proposed police compound because it encroaches upon and temporarily encloses Epping Forest land, of which Wanstead Flats form a part. Epping Forest is land held in trust by the City of London Corporation under the terms of the Epping Forest Act, 1878. The City of London Corporation were formally constituted as Conservators of the Forest. It was further stipulated that the Conservators shall at all times keep Epping Forest unenclosed and unbuilt upon as an open space for the recreation and enjoyment of the people.
The proposed police compound appears to include a significant enclosure containing a range of buildings. It is apparently not planned to be held as an open space and is not to be open to the people. It is there unacceptable.
In fact, we also find it extraordinary that the 2012 Olympics were known to be located in London for the last six years and:
Under the Freedom of Information Act we now request copies of all letters, emails and memoranda on these issues dated prior to 1 January 2009, including information on all other possible alternative locations which have been considered. With regard in particular to use of a legislative reform order to permit a temporary police compound on Wanstead Flats, we consider use of this mechanism to be entirely inappropriate. Section 1 of the LRRA 2006 lists certain powers the Act gives to Ministers — followed by a list of actions for which the LRRA cannot be used. It states that "The Government has also undertaken that the LRRA will not be used to deliver highly controversial proposals." It appears very obvious that the proposed police compound on Wanstead Flats is highly controversial.
We do not accept the entirely artificial limitation to only three possible options as posed in part 2 of your consultation document. Instead, we respectfully draw to your attention a comparison between (a) use of the LRO for the proposed police compound and (b) use of exactly the same area of Wanstead Flats for a firework display on 5 November last, organised by the London Borough of Newham. Newham were charged £5,000 for use of the site for two hours, (plus several days before and after the event, to prepare and clear up). They were also obliged to lodge an additional deposit of £5,000 which was refundable once the site was cleared.
We feel this provides a precedent for use of the same area for a police compound.
However, instead of use of the LRO, the police should simply be required to pay an agreed compensation fee, plus a refundable deposit, provided both sums are pro rata the Newham precedent. The police have apparently agreed a figure of £170,000 for use of the site for 90 days, with no refundable deposit. We feel it more appropriate that they be charged a fee proportionate to the Newham figure, with a further deposit refundable upon their clearance of the site after 90 days.
We note that the present draft agreement between the police and the City of London apparently includes no refundable deposit or any other incentive to clear the site after 90 or 120 days, beyond a written promise. The main concern both to ourselves and to many other local people is the precedent created by this encroachment upon Wanstead Flats — "temporary" or otherwise. We feel the financial agreement itself should provide a precedent for the future, to deter other "temporary" encroachments upon Wanstead Flats which involve any fencing, other enclosure or round the clock floodlights. If Newham was required to pay £5,000 for use of the area for two hours with no intrusive fencing or floodlights, then it seems appropriate that the police pay at last 45 times this figure for 90 days, to be trebled for fencing or temporary enclosure and 24 x 7 floodlights: i.e. £5,000 x 45 x 3 = £675,000, plus a similar figure again as a refundable deposit upon satisfactory clearance within 90 days. Finally, we are extremely concerned at the way this issue is being handled by the LRO route, when the local planning authority appears to have decided that a "muster station" is a temporary construction, thus removing any need for an Environmental Impact Assessment to evaluate what impact any such compound might have on the area. We feel that the vague concept of a temporary muster station may be extended almost indefinitely — and is certainly not limited to 90 or 120 days without further significant buttressing.
The Friends of Wanstead Parklands (FWP) is a voluntary body, originally founded in 1980 with the principle aim to promote the understanding of and concern for the historical and natural heritage of Wanstead Parklands and their future. Our areas of interest can also be seen on our website at wansteadpark.org.uk. We currently have 67 paid-up members, but are expanding much due to the issue of a proposed temporary police muster, briefing and deployment centre on Wanstead Flats to support the 2012 Olympic Games: “the police compound”. I write as chairman of FWP
We are opposed in principle to the proposed police compound because it encroaches upon and temporarily encloses Epping Forest land, of which Wanstead Flats form a part. Epping Forest is land held in trust by the City of London Corporation under the terms of the Epping Forest Act, 1878. The City of London Corporation were formally constituted as Conservators of the Forest. It was further stipulated that the Conservators shall at all times keep Epping Forest unenclosed and unbuilt upon as an open space for the recreation and enjoyment of the people
The proposed police compound appears to include a significant enclosure containing a range of buildings. It is apparently not planned to be held as an open space and is not to be open to the people. It is therefore unacceptable.
In fact, we also find it extraordinary that the 2012 Olympics were known to be located in London for the last six years and:
We further feel this application by the metropolitan police for planning permission (2643/10) should be rejected by Redbridge Council as the planning authority, since:
With regard in particular to use of a legislative reform order (LRO) to permit a temporary police compound on Wanstead Flats, we consider use of this mechanism to be entirely inappropriate. Section 1 of the LRRA 2006 lists certain powers the Act gives to Ministers — followed by a list of actions for which the LRRA cannot be used. It states that “The Government has also undertaken that the LRRA will not be used to deliver highly controversial proposals.” It appears very obvious that the proposed police compound on Wanstead Flats is highly controversial.
We do not accept the entirely artificial limitation to only three possible options as posed in part 2 of The Home Office consultation document. Instead, we respectfully draw to your attention a comparison between
Newham were charged £5,000 for use of the site for two hours, (plus several days before and after the event, to prepare and clear up). They were also obliged to lodge an additional deposit of £5,000 which was refundable once the site was cleared.
We feel this provides a precedent for use of the same area for a police compound. However, instead of use of an LRO, the police should simply be required to pay an agreed compensation fee, plus a refundable deposit, provided both sums are pro rata the Newham precedent. The police have apparently agreed a figure of £170,000 for use of the site for 90 days, with no refundable deposit. We feel it more appropriate that they be charged a fee proportionate to the Newham figure, with a further deposit refundable upon their clearance of the site after 90 days
We note that the present draft agreement between the police and the City of London apparently includes no refundable deposit or any other incentive to clear the site after 90 or 120 days, beyond a written promise. The main concern both to ourselves and to many other local people is the precedent created by this encroachment upon Wanstead Flats — temporary or otherwise.
We feel the financial agreement itself should provide a precedent for the future, to deter other “temporary” encroachments upon Wanstead Flats which involve any fencing, other enclosure or round the clock floodlights. If Newham was required to pay £5,000 for use of the area for two hours with no intrusive fencing or floodlights, then it seems appropriate that the police pay at least 45 times this figure for 90 days, to be trebled for fencing or temporary enclosure and 24 x 7 floodlights: i.e. £ 5,000× 45× 3 = £ 675,000, plus a similar figure again as a refundable deposit upon satisfactory clearance within 90 days.
Finally, we are extremely concerned at the way this issue is being handled by the LRO route, when the Redbridge local planning authority appears to have decided that a “muster station” a temporary construction, thus removing any need for an Environmental Impact Assessment to evaluate what impact any such compound might have on the area. We feel that the vague concept of a temporary muster station may be extended almost indefinitely — and is certainly not limited to 90 or 120 days without further significant financial buttressing as we here suggest.
This document was translated from LATEX by HEVEA.