Eastway Legacy

[mrP(Boonen)VT]

An Open Letter to British Cycling’s Board from the Catford Cycling Club

Eastway Planning Application

British Cycling’s Strategy - The Board has approved and endorsed its Chief Executive Officer’s compliant stance in not objecting to the ODA’s planning application. However your members and affiliated clubs do not share in your confidence that Cycling’s best interests are being served. On the contrary in their opinion British Cycling is colluding with the ODA in reneging on their ‘Legacy’ promise, which was the cornerstone of the Olympic bid.

The ‘Legacy’ promise was to leave improved facilities after the Games, to benefit the young and the community at large. The Velopark was originally conceived by the Lee Valley Park Authority and was featured in the Olympic Bid. We were promised that this would be built in its entirety, even if the bid was unsuccessful. Now we learn that not only have the ODA gone back on their word but after the vacated Eastway site is completed:
The re-instated facilities will actually be much inferior to those we have enjoyed for the past 32years.
That is apart from the superb Velodrome about which most riders in the sport and British Cycling are naturally enthusiastic. Our impression is that having firmly secured the future of the Velodrome BC Officers are prepared to let the remainder of the promised Velopark scheme go by default. Peter King has stated that that he believes some improvements in the proposed facilities can be negotiated at some time in the future. However this is a complete misreading of the situation, we are not talking about fine tuning these facilities, we are primarily concerned with the basic allocation of space which is crucial to establishing all Eastway’s permanent cycling facilities. Because undoubtedly the poor standard of some of the facilities and the exclusion of others, is entirely due to the drastic reduction in the size of the site. This could only have been rectified by objecting to the planning application as afterwards it will be too late.

Reduction in the Site – Originally the bid devoted the whole of our 35 Hectare site to the planned Velopark and this was to be our promised Legacy. Subsequently other Olympic sports have successfully negotiated a large slice of ‘our’ land for their own permanent Legacies, so this land can never be returned to Cycling. Furthermore the ODA have taken a property developer’s approach and have seized a sizeable part of the space we used, and will build new housing, allotments, tennis courts and football pitches on it. Encroaching to such an extent that less than a third is now left for cycling activities. In fact if one discounts the new Velodrome, out of the original 35 Hectares there is only a miniscule 6.5 Hectares available for the remaining Cycling disciplines. This drastic reduction means that there is not enough room to put back the off road course and has resulted in a compressed road circuit that would be laughable if it wasn't so tragic!
We feel that valuable land formerly used for cycling and allocated as such has been annexed for other purposes, if not for profit. It seems ‘our’ land has been up for grabs and the B.C. has been negligent in failing to ensure that the ODA kept to the undertakings given by the LDA. B.C. Has consistently refused to seek Counsel’s opinion as to the ‘legitimacy’ of the ODA actions. Peter King seems to have been a party to this ‘duplicity’ because he admits that he knew from the moment that the Olympic bid was successful that there was never any prospect of the whole of the site being retained for the promised Lee Valley Velopark. He has said that there “was never any commitment in terms of land to be dedicated to Cycling”. However Mr. King is well aware that that under the Heads of Terms signed by the LDA there is ‘a commitment in terms of land to be dedicated to Cycling’. It was his duty to ensure that at least enough land was retained to ensure a Velopark containing all the original planned facilities to fully meet the user’s needs. At this late stage we are cautioned ‘not to rock the boat’ and he is talks about negotiating the proposed plan at some future date when it is clearly going to be too late to make any major changes.

Road Circuit – The former circuit was literally at the centre of the Eastways park, in all respects. Its value to London cyclists from Elite racers to training school children, in this unique inner city location, cannot be over-emphasised. . It was a facility of national significance comprising a varied testing course with bends and hills suitable for international competition. What we are now being offered nowhere near measures up to this standard and will not meet the requirements of top level competition. It is flat U shaped dual carriageway with 180 degree turns at each end and squashed hard up against both edges of a polluting noisy motorway!
The Board and Officers should be in no doubt at the strong opposition to the prospect of racers and spectators being subject to these unhealthy and intolerable conditions, because the users rejected the proposed Rammey Marsh circuit on just these grounds. Now there is an even worse prospect with a circuit much closer to the motorway with the athletes even being forced to race on a bridge above the source of this environmental pollution. What happened to’ Health and Safety’?
We hope that someone of Ron Webb’s calibre will be designing the Velodrome track. However the word design cannot even be applied to the proposed Road Circuit. We cannot believe that British Cycling could have been party to its conception, certainly the users were not consulted, as promised. How can British Cycling acquiesce and impose such an ill conceived heritage on the young cyclists of the future?

Off Road Course – This valuable facility was very well used in the past and is crucial in the training and development of national athletes. The Beastway league was the country’s largest mountain bike series catering for thousands of riders during the course of the year. Although this was not run under the jurisdiction of BC nevertheless the national organisation for cycle sport should have a vested interest in ensuring its continuity. It is inconceivable that in planning a state of the art Velopark, this off-road trail has not been re-instated, just because the land which it formerly it used has been grabbed for re-development.

Cycle Speedway track/ BMX freestyle area and play track – These were all part of the original Velopark concept which was intended to embrace all cycling disciplines. As this is not a costly capital investment, once again it seems that no space can be found for these essential sports. Although perhaps not of high priority to the Olympic organisers these activities particularly appeal to the youngsters, so they fall within the bid remit of encouraging youngsters to take up sport. After all two of our gold medalists started out as a BMX cyclists.

Loss of Metropolitan Open Land - The placing of cycling facilities within a green Parkland was an essential part of the Lee Valley Park Authorities Velopark plan. The LDA & EDAW also gave a written undertaking in the Planning Agreement that Eastway would be replaced in a ‘Parkland Setting’ so the open space would be preserved.. Now it seems this is to be disregarded and this unique inner urban ‘green belt’ will be lost to the community for ever.

No ‘substitute’ Eastways at the moment – Having given up a valuable facility to the Olympics we were assured that there would a ‘temporary’ replacement to ensure continuity of racing/training., now with no immediate prospect of a replacement, London cyclists are currently left high and dry. After this ‘sacrifice’ it is rather daunting for them to learn that, when it is reinstated, the road circuit will be a mere shadow of its former self.

No consultation with users – We learn from BC communiqués that the ODA believes that the London Alliance is the body which represents the views of BC members, clubs and riders as a whole. Yet the extent of the groundswell of ‘Public Opinion’ expressed in this letter which is firmly opposed to the planning application and the ODA’s plan for Eastway, does not seem to have been communicated to them. We are unaware of any instance where the Alliance has sought the views of the riders themselves and there doesn’t seem to be any feedback to the membership. Our impression is that most of the Alliance representatives feel constrained from expressing any opinion which runs counter to the strategy established by HQ and when they do they face being firmly sanctioned for not toeing the line. The London Alliance is therefore not working as an effective consultative body as it denies representation to the wider membership of British Cycling and the very much wider group of former Eastway users.

In the light of the above facts we hope that the British Cycling Board will re-assess their position and instruct their officers to take firm and resolute action with a more pro-active approach in ensuring that the future Eastways will meet the needs of its users.

Reproduced in full for your information.
paul

[kieran]

Paul, maybe you should get this moved to General as it will get more exposure?

[Grahame]

And this has voiced my dislike/lack of respect/hatred for BC perfectly.

I wonder if we could persuade every BC member in the SouthEast to not renew their membership next year. That would send a pretty strong signal to the stuffed suits.

[mrP(Boonen)VT]

Graeme,
Please rest assured that every possible pressure is being applied to BC at the moment.
I don't know how long you have been racing, but if you go back a few years, SE Division broke away from BC because of the poor management, ran events fully insured, and issued own racing licences. The only problems were that (a) we could not award BC points (b) could not ride in National/Internationsl or any UCI recognised event. 99% of people were unaffected by this.
I am not suggesting that we do this again, but shows that we can ans will stand up for ourselves.

Marco,
Peter King has trotted this out several times at various meetings, as I think he is somewhat miffed by it, and it may go some way to paying scant regard for off-road racing. I remember one year at least, it was run under Cyclo cross regs, and Beastway paid a fortunr in levy's, so I guess that didn't continue.

Paul