Critique of the Site Selection ProcessA Local Solicitor |
This page is part of the campaign to
Save the Epping Forest Act.
This is an analysis of Sections 3–5 of the Need Case and Site Selection Decision Process (the “Site Selection document”) that was made by a local solicitor. She actually visited the sites in question but wishes to remain anonymous for professional reasons.
Comments by Kevin Blowe, David Bowden, Paul Taylor and Cilius Victor have also been incorporated. However, this has been done in a rather hasty way, so please bear with us if the narrative is not at clear as one would like.
The Olympic Games will and already do occupy an enormous site in east London. Substantial effort went in to the Olympic Bid and the subsequent planning applications. It is inexcusable that policing issues of the kind for which this muster station is intended were not properly considered in the preparation of these substantial documents.
In their proposal for this site, the Metropolitan Police Authority refer to the example of the Notting Hill Carnival, but this analogy is completely inappropriate. The Carnival takes place on a site (the streets of west London) that is at other times used for ordinary residential and commercial purposes, whereas the Olympic Games already have exclusive use of their own site.
The Police say that “the vast majority of officers across London will not be deployed within the Olympic Park itself” and that the use of a muster station “minimises the pressure on to local police facilities, allowing them to get on with day to day policing activity”. On the other hand, they also say that “centralising briefing facilities is not only tried and tested as being operationally the most effective but they are also cost effective” and “proximity to the areas to be policed [is needed] to avoid too much delay in deploying officers following their briefing”.
It is therefore completely ambiguous what the purpose of this briefing centre is, whether it is for the Olympic Games or for day-to-day policing activity.
In an email forming part of the Additional Information provided with the application, the applicant claims that the buildings constitute permitted development by virtue of being ancillary to other operations being carried out on that or adjoining land. If he is referring to the Olympic Park itself, it is not adjoining, and if he is referring to anything else it surely requires planning permission in its own right?
At (7.8) it is claimed that “The Olympic site itself does not have enough space for a briefing centre of this kind. Whilst security and policing formed part of the Olympic bid, matters of detail in relation to this and other matters were not known at that point.”
Such a fundamental error in their own planning does not justify granting consent to the application, particularly when there are, contrary to their own claims, many alternatives available.
I would comment first that if the main function of the MBDC is to assemble and brief officers prior to operational deployment (para. 2.8 of the Site Selection document), then this could be achieved by using several smaller temporary centres. No valid reason has been given as to why it is necessary to have just 3 temporary MBDCs in London and no more.
The Site Selection document states at paragraph 2.6 that the use of smaller facilities would result in multiple briefings and have a detrimental impact on local policing. However, it is not made clear what the detrimental impact on local policing would be if several smaller MBDCs were used and the Applicant needs to explain this. Neither has it been made clear why multiple briefings would present a problem. The possible increase in the cost of the security operation is not a valid reason in itself. It is worth mentioning that the present proposal relating to Wanstead Flats is for the use of 3 marquees for the Olympic Park MBDC. Therefore, everyone will not be briefed in the same area in any case.
Therefore, it is not accepted that the Applicant has made a valid case for overriding the protection which Wanstead Flats enjoys as Green Belt land, and the Planning Department should apply national policy as set out in PPG2 (Green Belt) to refuse this application.
The proposed MBDC is expected to contain space not only for 3 marquees for briefings but also kennels for dogs, stables for horses, cooking and eating facilities. If the Applicant’s argument that the briefings should take place in one location is accepted, a second question arises as to why horses, dogs and eating facilities must also be located on the same site.
If the Applicant is prepared to go to the trouble of bringing security officers by coach from their rest areas to the MBDC every day and thereafter taking them to their point of deployment and then back to the MBDC for a debrief before returning them to their rest areas, there will be little added in terms of further travel to have the animals located on a separate site thereby operating two separate smaller MBDCs. This would also mean that the animals could be kept on a site away from residential areas thereby reducing noise and disruption on local roads.
By choosing to keep all facilities on one site, the Applicant is clearly looking for an MBDC which meets criteria related to convenience and cost, rather than one which takes account of disruption to residents and damage to land. Using two or more sites would open up further alternative sites to the Applicant which at present have been excluded as being too small.
Any kind of search is severely restricted if the criteria are unnecessarily rigid. In particular, this site is intended for horses as well as human police officers. Do the horses need to be briefed? Are they going to take the same circuitous route via the Leytonstone bypass as the vehicles?
If the horses and the people were considered separately it would be possible to post the latter further away, such as on a site adjoining the M11 motorway.
It is said that “at the time of searching for a location, a number of sites were unable to confirm whether other Games related activity would be taking place on these”. This just shows that the Olympic Delivery Authority’s left hand doesn’t know what its right hand is doing.
It has not been made clear why a 1000m post-incident exclusion zone from the Olympic Park and its environs is necessary and the Applicant needs to justify this requirement. Throughout the Site Selection document, the Applicant cites the use of an MBDC at the Notting Hill Carnival to justify the same use for the Olympic Games. However, the Notting Hill Carnival does not demand a 1000m post-incident exclusion zone. The Applicant has confirmed in response to a Freedom of Information request that during the last 5 years, the two main sites used to police the Notting Hill Carnival have been Burlington Danes Academy W12 and Sion Manning School W10, both being used at the same time. Whilst Burlington Danes Academy is more than 1000m away from the route of the Carnival, Sion Manning School is immediately adjacent to the route.
Further, the Applicant has recently revealed that it is proposing to use the Ministry of Defence Cadet Training Centre at Blackheath as its MBDC to cover the River Zone (i.e. the area around Greenwich and other South East London venues). It is clear that the Training Centre is less than 400m away from the perimeter of the Greenwich Park venue.
The policing of both the Notting Hill carnival and the River Zone venue demonstrates that whilst a 1000m post-incident exclusion zone for the Olympic Park may be preferable to the Applicant, the Applicant does not consider it to be essential. Consequently, this criterion should not be used to exclude sites which may meet other criteria.
Appendix A of the Site Selection document lists which sites were rejected because they were of insufficient size. It is not clear how the Applicant has measured the size of these sites. I attach at Appendix 3, an extract from a document published by the London Borough of Tower Hamlets entitled “An Open Spaces Strategy for the London Borough of Tower Hamlets 2006-2016” (document available online). The extract is from Appendix 6 of this document and is an analysis of Tower Hamlets Council owned parks and open spaces by size.
A number of the Applicant’s long listed sites appear on this extract. However, the sizes which the Applicant has attributed to those sites and the official sizes stated by the London Borough of Tower Hamlets seem to differ considerably. For example, Meath Gardens is officially listed as 3.92 ha, however, the Applicant’s figures suggest that it is only 1.1 ha.
It is also noteworthy that Tower Hamlets Council have assessed Victoria Park at 86ha. It is extremely surprising (and somewhat unbelievable) that the Applicant has been unable to find 3.6 ha outside of the post-incident exclusion zone to house its MBDC there. The Applicant has rejected Victoria Park on the basis that LOCOG events are to be held there. However, I telephoned and spoke to the planning department at Tower Hamlets Council at the beginning of December 2010 to ask them what events were to be held at Victoria Park during the Olympic Games and was advised that the only event which was envisaged at that time was the installation of a live screen and even that had not been confirmed yet.
Given that the Applicant has been planning for an MBDC to cover the Olympic Zone since at least the middle of 2009, it has had ample time to approach Tower Hamlets Council for permission to use part of Victoria Park for its MBDC. Victoria Park would also be more practical as the route to the Olympic Stadium from Victoria Park is far more direct than from any of the other sites considered.
The site on Wanstead Flats is also described as “2% of the total area of Wanstead Flats”. In fact, it is about half of the naturally defined portion of the Flats between Lake House Road and Centre Road, whilst the remainder of the ground there is rough or boggy. People will therefore effectively be prevented from using that portion at all. What you choose to define as the “total area”, or indeed call Wanstead Flats as distinct from other parts of Epping Forest, are rather academic questions.
The fence would prevent access from the neighbouring areas to the south except by walking across either the football pitches to the west of Lake House Road or the SSSI immediately abutting the site.
Having myself now visited a number of the longlisted sites, I consider that South Millfields is also suitable for the Applicant’s needs and wonder if the Applicant has in fact visited the site. The Applicant has assessed the size of South Millfields as 3ha but South Millfields is actually made up of 3 adjoining sites with a road running in between and is certainly larger than the attributed 3ha. It would be of no hardship for the Applicant to have the animals on one of the sites and the marquees and catering facilities on another and perhaps parking on the third site. And were the Applicant to use North Millfields as well which is separated from South Millfields by an “A” road, that would allow for even further space should it be required.
Some of the information which the Applicant has provided is misleading. For example, it has rejected Spring Hill Sports Ground and Springfield Park as being too small. However, both these sites are adjacent to each other being separated only by a local road. It would be entirely possible for the Applicant to place stables on one of those sites and to have the other site for the marquees.
An alternative site that is already available to the Metropolitan Police Authority is their disused station in Leytonstone High Road, which is currently occupied by squatters. The excuse for the unsuitability of this site is that they plan to sell it.
Finally, a point should be made about the outermost search boundary. The Excel centre at Custom House in the Docklands should have been considered as it falls just outside the southern boundary by only around 800m. This distance is negligible for either a vehicle or a horse to traverse (and could be walked in under 10 minutes). The inside of the Excel centre is already being used for Olympic events and it would make sense to use the outside for the Applicant’s MBDC. Further, Excel has been purpose built to host major events and has excellent road links with the adjacent A1011 leading directly to the Olympic Park.
The Applicant ought to have prioritised the 9 criteria used to assess the shortlist. Clearly some of these criteria are of very little importance. For example, it makes little sense to reject a site simply because it is on a floodplain given that the likelihood of flooding occurring in East London during the summer months when the Olympic Games are taking place is very small.
It is also not clear why a secondary access is vital. The Applicant merely states that it is for operational reasons to be used in exceptional circumstances. In that respect, it is worth noting that the Ministry of Defence Cadet Training Centre which has been put forward as the MBDC for the River Zone only has one access route. Therefore, clearly, a secondary route is not essential but merely preferable.
Four sites were shortlisted by the Applicant and were considered against 9 different criteria. Only Wanstead Flats was deemed to meet all the criteria thus leading to the Applicant’s conclusion that it was the only site available. Of the 9 criteria, perhaps the most important is the assurance of availability in 2012. Clearly if there is no guarantee that the site will be available, then the Applicant would have to rule that site out.
On that basis, it is not clear why the Applicant has stated that Wanstead Flats meets all the criteria. The Applicant is aware that Wanstead Flats is protected by the Epping Forest Act 1878 which obliges the City of London Corporation as conservators of the Forest to prevent any enclosure. The Applicant is hoping that a Legislative Reform Order can be obtained which will temporarily suspend the Act allowing it bypass the protection offered by the Act. However, there is no guarantee that it will obtain an LRO.
Therefore, Wanstead Flats fails the criteria on this requirement alone as there is clearly no assurance that it will be available in 2012. If the Planning Department allows the Applicant’s application, it will should be aware that its decision may be subject to a judicial review. At best the Planning Department should look to postpone its decision until the outcome of the application for a LRO is known.
At (24) he certifies that he has given notice to the Corporation of the City of London as owner of the land. He appears to have neither notified the commoners who have rights over the land, nor the public.
At (25) he declares that none of the land is, or is part of an agricultural holding, yet it is by virtue of the common grazing and other rights held over it.
The Police state that the sports ground is beyond walking distance for horses. However, it is less than 2km further away than the preferred Wanstead Flats site. A human could walk 2 km in less than 25 minutes. A horse could cover that in a fraction of the time. It is simply unrealistic for the Applicant to try and argue that a horse would not be able to cope with this additional distance given that the horse will be expected to remain on duty for much of the day.
Secondly, the Applicant has ruled this site out on the basis that it falls within a flood plain. If the Applicant is seriously worried about freak weather during the Olympic Games, it could just as well have ruled out Wanstead Flats on the basis that Wanstead Flats has been known to flood after heavy rainfall (a quick search on the Internet would reveal this). In fact, it is not clear why Wanstead Flats would not be blighted in the same way as Wanstead Park Sports Ground given that the proposed MBDC on Wanstead Flats would also be adjacent to a watercourse (Jubilee Pond).
The Applicant has rejected this site on the basis that it would be necessary to cross the A12. However, this appears to be incorrect as it would not be necessary to cross the A12 at any time. From North Millfields, it would be a easy journey to reach Hackney Wick. Thereafter, it would be possible to proceed south from Hackney Wick along Cadogan Terrace which runs parallel to the A12, and then cross at Wick Lane using the underpass into the Olympic Park. Appendix 4 is a leaflet produced by the London 2012 organisers showing the improvements to be made to the Wick Lane crossing.
The objection that the site is located adjacent to a river has already been covered above with respect to Wanstead Park Sports Ground. The same comments are applied here.
In response to the argument that there is no secondary access, that is indeed presently the case. However, North Millfields is separated from the adjacent A104 by nothing more than a very short metal fence which runs along its length. It would be a fairly simple procedure to remove a section of the gate and enlarge the service gate which presently allows direct access onto the A104. Given that the Applicant is looking to carry out temporary works to Wanstead Flats before using it for an MBDC, carrying out temporary works to North Millfields would be in keeping with its approach. Enlarging the service gate would also solve the problem of restricted access which is another objection levelled at the North Millfields site. As for the issue of no secondary access, a gateway could be installed at the north end of the site to allow exit at that point. The A107 is no more than 250m away.
In respect of the objection that North Millfields would not allow for space for local use, this is nonsense and suggests that the comments have been made without visiting the site. Immediately opposite North Millfields is South Millfields which altogether is a much larger site than North Millfields. Any activity which would have taken place on North Millfields could take place on South Millfields. South Millfields is also adjacent to Walthamstow Marshes which is an extensive open space for use by residents and does contain playing fields.
As for the argument that selection of North Millfields would result in use of congested, narrow roads, a look at the map (see Appendix 5) shows that such use would be limited given that North Millfields is bordered at its south end by the A104 and is about 250m away at its west end from the A107. Use of the narrow residential roads at the north end of the site could be avoided altogether and it is not clear why the Applicant has raised this as an issue.
Finally, in response to the comment that any MBDC on North Millfields would only be 25m from residential housing, it is worth referring again to the selected site for the River Zone which is the Ministry of Defence Cadet Training Centre in Blackheath where there is a block of flats immediately adjacent to that site (much taller than the houses adjacent to North Millfields).
The Home Office consultation document contains the barely concealed threat of a compulsory purchase order. It admits that this would not have enjoyed support from the City of London Corporation and would have been fiercely resisted by local people. It could hardly be described as proportionate, particularly given the historical precedent of a public inquiry in 1946, ordered by the Minister for Town and Country Planning, which rejected a compulsory purchase application for housing development in post- war circumstances that were far more pressing than the needs of the Olympics.
The Police were repeatedly asked what other sites they considered alongside Wanstead Flats. In particular this question was put to Alaric Bonthron at the public meeting on 6 October, but he refused to answer it. Still no indication has been given of what their fallback option would be should they fail to get planning permission or the necessary change to the Epping Forest Act. Objectors have consequently not been given reasonable opportunity to examine alternative sites.
At a local public meeting in October 2010, the City of London Corporation and the Metropolitan Police both refused to disclose any information about alternative sites on grounds of commercial sensitivity. It was only following pressure from local people and the threat of judicial review by the Save Wanstead Flats campaign that the CgMs consultants report "The Need Case and Site Selection Decision Process" dated November 2010 was finally released.
Even so, there is an evident unfairness in allowing only 3-4 weeks (from the eventual release of the CgMs report) to check the validity of the decision-making process that was allegedly used for site selection. It is impossible for local opponents of the use of Wanstead Flats to re-examine each of the other sites that were purportedly considered, including the chance to make necessary site visits, when the Metropolitan police has had many months to prepare and make their case to the Home Secretary.
Since the issue of site alternatives may ultimately be crucial in whether or not an LRO is made in respect of Wanstead Flats and the 1878 Act, and is highly material to corresponding objections which could be made under s.3(2) of the 2006 Act that conditions in s.3(2) are not satisfied, there is a fundamental unfairness in objectors only being able to respond in a time span of not more than about 3-4 weeks whereas the principal proponents have had at least a further 2 months in which to prepare and make their case to the Minister.
In fact 3 weeks is unreasonably short and I, and others, consider we have been prejudiced in the ability to make a fully reasoned and factually researched case in a Consultation response. Obviously, factual research into the various individual sites presented in the Report, including necessary site visits, is not something that working people can carry out in a short time. Local residents like myself do not have the time and resources available to the Metropolitan Police or the Corporation of London as Conservators.
This is unfair and a further violation of s.13 of the 2006 Act since plainly it is implied in s.13 that the required consultation must be fair. I note that Annex B of the Consultation Document sets forth a Code of Practice on Consultation which includes as Criterion 2, Duration of Consultation Exercises, the statement that, “Consultations should normally last for at least 12 weeks with consideration given to longer timescales where feasible and sensible”. The public therefore should have had at the very least 12 weeks from the publication of the CgMs Report, and that key Report should itself have been included as an Annex to the Consultation Document or at least a clear reference for it should have been given in the Document.
The Home Office consultation document mentions approvingly the proximity of Wanstead Flats to the Olympic Park, the Westfield shopping centre, Stratford more generally as "a major transport hub" and Victoria Park, as well as its easy access to the road network and the size of the site. Until very recently, however, it would have been impossible to test whether Wanstead Flats really represents the "only suitable site", as the criteria for site selection and details of alternative sites were not published.
However, it is important to reiterate that many of the reasons given to reject other sites — such as heavy vehicle access, relationship to other land use and impact on local activities and recreational use — apply just as much to Wanstead Flats, which unlike other alternatives has the additional status of protected heritage land.
It seems entirely reasonable to question whether the CgMs consultants report was produced specifically to confirm a decision to favour the use of Wanstead Flats that had already been made by the Metropolitan police. It is worth highlighting that consideration of alternative greenfield sites appears to have been carried out in a highly perfunctory manner. Whether suitable or not, we know that one of the rejected sites — the Lady Trower Playing Fields in East Ham — is owned by a local charity that at no point was approached for a site visit or additional information.
On this basis, it is our contention that the search for alternative sites was, at best, cursory and that having settled upon Wanstead Flats, the Metropolitan police have sought to mould its selection criteria to fit only one outcome. This decision is the only reason why a Legislative Reform Order is now under consideration.
The Olympics are going to happen and the event will need to be made safe and secure. The police will need the plan and organise their resources to that end. The planning process is probably not the place to deliberate why on earth a multi billion pound event has allocated so little effort and resources into finding a suitable and non destructive operations base.
I lack the resources to offer an alternative site for police operations and at a public meeting in Forest Gate on 6 October 2010 attended by the police who revealed that they had no alternative plans to Wanstead Flats. This should disturb you when considering this application. It prejudges your decision and sets up a kind of ‘moral coercion’ for surely you would not deny a ‘homeless’ police an operations base to organise pubic protection during the Olympic games — a once in a life time event.
I believe it was reckless of the police not to have a contingency plan for policing such a major event based on three or four equally prepared possible alternative locations. The MPA documents being presented to you as an assessment of alternative sites is poor meat indeed. The problem here is less to do with available and affordable sites and more a symptom of a lack of rigor, due diligence and mindful application of effort to achieving a considered solution. All of this is easily repairable by the MPA.
This document was translated from LATEX by HEVEA.