Objection to Police use of Wanstead FlatsA Local Solicitor7 February 2011 |
This page is part of the campaign to
Save the Epping Forest Act.
Before I comment on specific documents, the Planning Department is asked to note that since the application was submitted in November 2010, new documents have been added to the application. This is despite the fact that a number of people had already submitted their response and may not have subsequently become aware of the existence of the new documentation.
Some of the new documentation submitted is important. For example, the Applicant has now prepared a marquee specification. It has become clear that the height of the marquees will be up to 5.4m, far higher than the height of 4.8m mentioned in the Design and Access Statement.
The Applicant has therefore misled residents by not submitting all documentation at the outset.
I will now comment on the following documents which have been submitted as part of the application and, where relevant, I will explain how they contravene planning guidelines:
The Need Case and Site Selection Decision Process (“the Site Selection document”)
The Site Selection document begins by outlining the need for a Muster Briefing and Deployment Centre (“MBDC”). I do not intend to dispute this need and accept that a temporary security structure may be the best way to meet the policing needs of the Olympic Games and associated events.
I will instead focus on Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Site Selection document which outline the selection process which was used to decide the most suitable site to place the MBDC.
Before doing so, I would comment 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.
Turning to Sections 3, 4 and 5:
Criteria for Initial Assessment
Criterion 1 — Site Suitability: Size (approx. 3.5 ha) outside of a 1000m post incident exclusion zone from the Olympic Park and its environs
i) 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 coaching security officers from their rest areas to the MBDC every day and thereafter coaching 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.
ii) 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 (see Appendix 1 which shows Burlington Danes Academy marked with a blue cross, Sion Massing School marked with a red cross and the western perimeter of the Carnival route marked in green).
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). Appendix 2 is a map showing the Training Centre marked in red and the western perimeter of the Greenwich Park venue marked in blue. 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.
i) Size Suitability
The Site Selection document states that each of the long listed sites was visited in order to assess it against the criteria. A number of the sites initially long listed have been rejected on the basis that they either fell within the 1000m post-incident exclusion zone or were of insufficient size.
I have commented above on the 1000m post-incident exclusion zone and that the Applicant has not consistently enforced this criterion either for other major events, or even for other MBDCs to be used during the Olympic Games. The Applicant should therefore reconsider those sites which have been rejected due to that reason.
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 beginning of 2010, 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.
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.
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.
With regards to the other shortlisted sites, the comments made by the Applicant require clarification. Dealing with each of the other contenders in turn:
The Applicant states that the site is beyond walking distance for horses. However, the site 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).
No comments are made about this site as it is accepted that the site is unsuitable for use as an MBDC.
The Applicant has not demonstrated that Wanstead Flats is the only suitable site. In fact, Wanstead Flats fails the criteria which the Applicant itself has used to assess all the sites.
This document was prepared using data obtained by acoustic consultants. The conclusion reached is that noise from the operation of the MBDC will not have a significant impact on the amenity of local residents.
A number of observations can be made from this document as follows:
No consideration has been given to the additional noise which would result if there was an emergency. An emergency could even occur during the middle of the night. The Applicant’s Planning Statement states at paragraph 7.69 that “the site will not be used for emergency ‘blue light’ response thus no sirens will emanate from vehicles using the site, except for an extreme emergency situation”.
To have prepared a noise assessment using data which would only be accurate if there was no emergency is a contradiction in terms. The purpose of the MBDC is to coordinate a response if there is an emergency. Therefore, it is not for the Applicant to make some kind of assessment of the likelihood or not of such an emergency occurring, but rather to assume that there will be an emergency and consider the impact that would have on the local neighbourhood.
It is worth bearing in mind that the data collected suggests that at night, the maximum noise level would marginally exceed World Health Organisation guidelines (although the argument put forward by the Applicant is that such a change would be imperceptible to local residents). Add to that any kind of emergency which, even if there were no sirens, would almost definitely result in an increase in traffic, and the Applicant will have far exceeded WHO guidelines.
The presence of horses does not appear to have been taken into account in preparing the noise data for this document. Paragraph 5.2 considers “movement of horses” as one of the main noise impacts from the operation of the site. But it is not clear how this has been factored into the estimates made of the noise output. Given that the perimeter fence is not going to reduce the noise from horses once they leave the MBDC and given that the horses are going to pass along residential roads, special consideration ought to have been given to this.
Further, it is not know whether the horses will leave and return to the MBDC at the same time. This is unlikely given that there are to be several places of deployment. Therefore residents could be faced with an almost continuous sound of horses throughout the day.
Further, there is no mention of how the presence of horses on the site overnight may affect noise levels. It is not clear that this has been factored in to the assessment of data. Nor is there any mention of additional noise levels from dogs being kept on site during the day therefore it is to be presumed that this has also not been considered.
No thought seems to have been given to the fact that the area around the site where the MBDC is to be sited is reasonably quiet. The presence of an MBDC will completely change the character and temperament of the area.
National Planning Policy Guidance 24: Planning and Noise states at paragraph 5 that:
Plans should contain policies designed to ensure …that potentially noisy developments are located in areas where noise will not be such an important consideration or where its impact can be minimised. It may also be appropriate for local planning authorities to adopt policies to avoid potentially noisy developments in areas which have remained relatively undisturbed by noise nuisance and are prized for their recreational and amenity value for this reason.
It is contended that siting an MBDC on Wanstead Flats would breach PPG 24 on the basis that the area around the Fairground Site, despite having an“A” road running alongside, is actually quite quiet, given that it is in the middle of a vast open space. Further, the noise is not going to be self-contained within the site, but will spill over into the entrance and exit of vehicles and animals and along the route they take to their place of deployment.
The application also contravenes PPG 20 which states at paragraph 20 that
Special consideration is required where noisy development is proposed in or near Sites of Special Scientific Interest.
Insufficient regard has been paid to the fact that the MBDC will lie adjacent to a site of special scientific interest
This document is an assessment by the Applicant of the effect on traffic of positioning an MBDC on Wanstead Flats. The conclusion reached is that the presence of an MBDC would have negligible impact on traffic during the operation of the MBDC.
As part of the assessment, a site visit was carried out and an assessment made of the amount of traffic during a “normal” day. It was found that there was a reduction in traffic during school holidays which is when the Olympic Games is to be held. A reduction in traffic of between 2-6
Further, the Applicant has attributed an “Olympic Downturn Factor” which it says will further reduce traffic by 8
A number of comments can be made about the Applicant’s conclusions:
There is no assessment of how the transport situation might change should the Applicant be faced with an emergency during the Olympic Games. It is well documented that the Olympic Games represents the biggest security threat that the UK has ever faced and there is therefore a significant possibility that an incident might occur. Should that happen, the MBDC at Wanstead Flats (being the biggest of the London MBDCs) would no doubt be expected to coordinate a response to the emergency. In that event, it is likely that traffic would not be in accordance with the findings of the Applicant in its Transport Assessment. For example, roads may need to be cordoned off to allow police vehicles priority access.
In short, the data contained within the Transport Assessment can only be considered accurate if it is assumed that the users of the MBDC will be following the same routine everyday throughout the 90 days that the MBDC is on site.
No evidence has been provided to support the application of an Olympic Downturn Factor. If it is correct that some people will look to leave the area whilst the Games are on, however, it is equally possible that visitors from other parts of the country will drive down to the area to take advantage of the permit-free parking which applies to most of the area around Wanstead Flats. Wanstead Flats is barely 1km away from the A118 Romford Road which is one of the main thoroughfares through East London, leading directly to Stratford and the Olympic Stadium. Anybody looking to drive to East London is likely to pass there.
Further, no consideration has been given to the possibility that the opposite of the Olympic Downturn Factor might apply — that people who might usually go away for the summer will choose in fact to stay in the UK for the reason of the Olympics thereby levelling out any drop in traffic caused by the Olympic Downturn Factor.
Even if the Olympic Downturn Factor is accepted as support for the argument that there will be less traffic on the road whilst the Olympic Games are in flow, no consideration has been given to how traffic will be affected for the remainder of the 90 days that the MBDC will be on Wanstead Flats. Some of that time will coincide with the finish and start of the school term and it is to be expected that the Applicant will want to carry out “practice runs” prior to the start of the Olympic Games thereby clashing with school traffic.
It is worrying to note that the Applicant’s proposed use of horses has not been taken into account in the traffic assessment. Around 54 stables are expected to be sited within the MBDC, therefore at least an equivalent number of horses can be expected. This means that at any one time, there may be a total of 54 horses leaving the MBDC together. The Applicant has not revealed the routes which the horses will use, whether to get to the Olympic stadium in Stratford or elsewhere. It is unrealistic to expect that the horses are not going to affect the flow of traffic quite substantially given the speed at which they will be moving.
Finally, the Fairground Site at Wanstead Flats is located close to a very residential area. Any traffic from the site will have to pass through Forest Gate which is a built up area. Even the smallest increase in traffic will have an adverse affect on local residents
In collating evidence, the Applicant has relied on unsupported data and has ignored other significant factors. As such, it is not clear how the Planning Authority can reach a view on the evidence presented. Local level Borough wide Policy T1 states that planning permission will not be granted for development which would increase trip generation excessively or would have a negative adverse impact on traffic generation. At present, the evidence to support the Applicant’s argument that there will be no adverse impact is unsubstantiated. Either the Planning Authority should seek further and better particulars, or should reject the application on the basis that the conclusion reached is unproven.
The Planning Department should bear in mind the statement which the Applicant makes in their “Planning Statement” lodged in support of the application. At paragraph 7.78, it is stated that:
“Security measures will be under constant review and there may be occasions where there needs to be a change and we will ensure that we communicate any changes to local residents and users”
That statement really calls into question the reliability and accuracy of the whole application. If the Applicant is saying that despite what is said in all the documents which make up the application, the actual MBDC may end up being different for whatever reason, the Planning Department ought to reject the application straight out. To illustrate this point, it is inconceivable that a builder building a house could put in a planning application and state that the information he has submitted to the local authority might be subject to change. Therefore, why is it appropriate for the Applicant in this case to be able to do just that?
For all the reasons given above, this application should be rejected.
This document was translated from LATEX by HEVEA.