Objection to Police use of Wanstead FlatsKevin Mansell |
The police presence on the Flats is an unwanted intrusion for people wanting to follow their normal recreational activities for four months and is unjustified when there are numerous other sites in East and South East London that meet the Met’s requirements for the Games (though they have refused to disclose details of their appraisal). The problem is that they are more expensive and so the Corporation of London is being leaned on to provide a low-cost solution.
The risks to local residents of proximity to the Met’s major operational and mustering centre for the Olympics and ParaOlympics are enormous, as it is not unduly alarmist to imagine a major terrorist attack involving conventional explosives or a “dirty” bomb with the focus of the world’s media on London in 2012.
The IRA were able to attack 10 Downing St in the 1990s using an improvised rocket launcher from a street off Whitehall: how much easier it would be to stage an attack from anywhere else on the Flats as it would be impossible to conduct security checks on all traffic coming to the Flats from Blake Hall Rd, Cann Hall Rd, Woodford Rd, Aldersbrook Rd and Dames Rd.
The Met claim that their chosen site meets their criterion of not being close to residential housing, but this is patently not true, especially for residents of Dames Rd and adjoining roads. The site has for the past 130 years been let by the Corporation of London solely for recreational purposes and an amendment to the Epping Forest Act is necessary for this to change. It is by no means clear that such an amendment will receive Parliamentary support and Redbridge Council should defer a planning decision until the outcome is clear.
Neither should the Council consider their decision without having received full details of the costed options for other sites (reportedly over 20) that the Met considered.At £170,000 the rental reportedly agreed by the Corporation, is derisory in the context of the total Government budget for the Olympics, and undoubtedly best value for anyone but local residents who will be placed in harm’s way for 4 months.
I am writing in complete disgust at the failure of Redbridge Council to encourage public debate tomorrow evening on the planning application concerning the police use of Wanstead Flats in summer 2012.With hundreds of objections from local residents, it is an insult to allow only two speakers from the floor, for two minutes each, on such a serious matter.
There are life and death issues involved in this decision for thousands of local residents. With the airport-type security around the Olympic Stadium, this site becomes a prime target for Al Qaida and similar groups wishing to use the opportunity of the Olympics to gain worldwide publicity from a terrorist attack. With thousands of police on the site at certain times, Wanstead Flats becomes the the most likely focus for any attempt at mass killings. It is not unduly alarmist or far-fetched to anticipate or imagine a sophisticated terrorist attack involving conventional explosives, rocket propelled grenades, missiles or a "dirty" bomb as being within the capability of determined terrorists.
Though the exhibition staged at Durning Hall claimed the site was “distant from residential areas”, try telling that brazen falsehood to householders in Dames Road, Sidney Road, and Knighton Road E7 living less than 100 yards away, and the thousands downwind from the site in Forest Gate and Aldersbrook. Your officers’ report almost wilfully neglects this aspect and talks generally about the satisfactory Olympic security arrangements.
The IRA were able to attack 10 Downing St in the 1990s using an improvised rocket launcher from a street off Whitehall: how much easier it would be to stage an attack from anywhere on and around the Flats, as it would be impossible to conduct security checks on all traffic coming down roads in and around the Flats : from Blake Hall Rd, Cann Hall Rd, Woodford Rd, Aldersbrook Rd and Dames Rd. The Met claim that distance from residential areas was a key criterion in their appraisal of potential sites, but it has never been clear how they weighted these criteria and your report is totally silent on this crucial factor in the application. Where is the evidence that the police seriously considered a site isolated from residential property, and if they did, why was it rejected in favour of the Flats?
The police presence on the Flats is also an unwanted intrusion for people wanting to follow their normal recreational activities for four months and is unjustified when there are numerous other sites in East and South East London that meet the Metropolitan Police’s requirements for the Games (though they have refused to disclose details of their appraisal). The problem is that they are more expensive and so the Corporation of London has been leant on to provide a low-cost solution. The risks to lives make this crude priority of achieving economy in policing costs completely immoral.
The site has for the past 130 years been let by the Corporation of London solely for recreational purposes and an amendment to the Epping Forest Act is necessary for this to change. The Council should defer its decision until it has been provided with full details of the costed options for other sites (reportedly over 20) that the Met considered, and their full risk assessment and options appraisal At £170,000, the rental reportedly agreed by the Corporation, is derisory in the context of the total Government budget for the Olympics, but undoubtedly best value for anyone but local residents who will be placed in harm’s way for four months.
No-one wants to see the kind of tragedy I have outlined . But equally, no-one seems to have seriously considered the possibility in making this application. Redbridge Members have this one chance to put the well-being of local residents first.
Your story in last week’s paper (“Noise fears for Flats Police Headquarters”) has been overtaken by events. I assume it was an inconvenient print deadline, rather than a lack of reporters that was the reason!
At Newham’s Strategic Development Committee on February 23, Councillors decided to oppose the planning application by the Metropolitan Police due to their serious concerns about the risks of a terrorist attack on the police site which posed a security risk to local residents. Newham urged Redbridge Council to give priority to the safety of local Newham residents in Dames, Knighton and Sidney Roads. Councillors rejected the advice of their planning chief Clive Dalton, which the Recorder reported last week,that the Olympics were a special one-off event and that siting the police base on the Flats was crucial to their success, and backed the arguments of local residents that the site was unsuitable for an Olympics Police mustering and briefing centre due to its proximity to local homes, 1600 of whose occupants had signed a petition objecting to the Police plans presented to Redbridge Council, the planning authority for the Flats.
Both Newham Council’s views and the residents’ petition were rejected the following evening 25 February by Redbridge’s Regulatory Committee, which has delegated planning powers for Redbridge Council. Councillors there dismissed any possibility of a security threat from an attack by any international terrorist or jihadist group, which they judged unlikely based on current intelligence assessments. Oddly, in a week when the inquests on the 7/7/2005 victims were concluding, they felt able to have complete confidence in the intelligence agencies to foil any plot timed to coincide with the Olympics, and complete confidence in the police to be able to secure all entrances to the roads around Wanstead Flats on a 24/7 basis for the three months the police camp will be on the Flats.
The battle now moves to Parliament where a Ministerial “legislative reform order”, amending the 1878 Epping Forest Act, which clearly proscribes any non- recreational use of the Flats ( part of Epping Forest), will be laid later this month by the Home Secretary using powers available in the 2006 Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act, ironically strongly opposed by both Coalition parties at the time, as it circumvents normal Parliamentary process and debate. This draft order was the subject of a flawed 3 month Home Office consultation ending in December 2010 ,which misquoted the relevant section of the 1878 Act.
Readers can still lobby their local MPs to reject this cynical use of the 2006 Act, and to protect Wanstead Flats from abuse by the powers-that-be, who appear to be seeking a cheap solution to the undoubtedly important task of policing the Olympics, by jeopardising the safety of thousands of local Newham residents, when a number of sites in East London, distant from human habitation, were available but obviously more expensive , and therefore rejected.
Further details of how to protest can be found on the Protect Wanstead Flats and Epping Forest Facebook site and the Save Wanstead Flats website http://www.savewansteadflats.org.uk .
This document was translated from LATEX by HEVEA.