2012 Velopark

Rollapaluza CC's official address is in Hackney...hope this helps.

ELV will be all over it.

Cheers, Bryan doesn't "do" cross, so its a hollow victory!

Apparently no single club will be allowed a monopoly on track time (ala sportscity velo) whenever it is that mere mortals are allowed on.

Not wanting to deflect from your glory JC, but I beat Bryan in a cross race at the beginning of December. I doubt that will ever happen on the track.

Lee Valley leisure are set to take over the running of the Velodrome as I mentioned earlier...

Providing they contract the right people to do so then I expect all clubs will be able to get a look in. Even HH is not a monopoly, despite being a club run facility there are no sessions that are non-inclusive.

Quick bump on the public meeting on Wednesday 30th organised by the Eastway Users' Group. Here's a message from the Chair, Michael Humphreys, explaining what will be happening at the meeting.

Users of Eastway were assured relocation and a legacy when they agreed to make way for the Olympic Park to be built. They look forward to a return to the Inner East London site and this meeting is a key step along the way back. The meeting has been organised by Eastway Users’ Group as the riders' and organisers' best opportunity to understand each set of plans and to make their feelings known to the planning authorities.

The ODA's scheme is approved for planning, it has secure funding and an operator that intends to have the site open by May 2013.,

The OPLC has a scheme with more complicated timelines and build, and has yet to secure the funding and backing of the operator. It recently applied for planning permission with public comments invited before a decision which is due shortly.

Riders will have many questions and will be seeking to know the advantages and drawbacks of each scheme. The alternative scheme is in for planning approval so the views of those for whom the facility is intended to be built should carry a lot of weight. Riders are very concerned to secure the best value in a facility they want to use as much as possible, just like the one they had to leave in 2006.

**Meeting takes place on Wednesday 30th March, 2011, from 7-9pm at the Methodist Hall in Approach Road, Bethnal Green, London E2 9JP
**
My comment on this;-

"It's great to have two public bodies offering schemes for the legacy velopark. The trouble is, the riders only need one scheme so it had better be the right one. There are many questions and maybe not enough of the right kind of answers from the OPLC. We worked for over two years with Hopkins and the ODA to work out the close detail on which we need to be assured for all four disciplines to work properly. The OPLC scheme comes with its agenda to get at certain parts of the wider site on its terms. It has to come up with the right answers and deliver the right scheme if it wants to get the riders' vote. Let's see the hustings first and remember this is the legacy, so it's meant to be forever and for all.

See you at the meeting."
Michael Humphreys
chair, Eastway Users' Group

This is well worth attending if you loved Eastway and you want a great legacy.

The deadline for objections to the OPLC 'Alternative' Velopark scheme is this coming Monday, April 11th. Please take a moment to read this letter of objection from the Eastway Users' Group. The planning applications to which it refers are large and complex. You can view them here if you still have time:

http://planning.london2012.com/publicaccess/tdc/DcApplication/application_detailview.aspx?caseno=LHDCWFSZK0000

http://planning.london2012.com/publicaccess/tdc/DcApplication/application_detailview.aspx?caseno=LI9AX6SZK0000

We have been through them very carefully and have come up with the following summary of comments, which you may wish to use to inform your own comments.

This was discussed at a recent public meeting at which those in attendance gave overwhelming support to the consented ODA scheme over the OPLC scheme:

http://www.londoncyclesport.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3560:olympic-velo-park-betrayal-in-the-air&catid=1:latest-news&Itemid=57

This will hopefully be the last battle to ensure a great legacy for the old Eastway. Your support is urgently needed.

Letter of objection to OPLC Alternative Velopark and NW Parklands Schemes

Anne Ogundiya
Senior Planner - Development Control
Olympic Delivery Authority Planning Decisions Team

Mailpoint 32B,
22nd Floor
1 Churchill Place
Canary Wharf
London E14 5LN

Email: planning.enquiries@pdt.oda.gov.uk

Planning references 11/90114/FUMODA The Alternative VeloPark proposal

                                11/90142/FULODA North-West Parklands

Dear Ms Ogundiya

In the covenant made with the London Development Agency it says;- ‘Legacy Eastway Cycle Circuit [is covenanted] to be created in parkland in the Legacy Construction Phase in order to meet the needs of cycle users and minimise conflict with other park users through design and use of topography to prevent inappropriate public access to the Legacy Eastway Cycle Circuit.”

I write to object to The Alternative VeloPark proposal (ref 11/90114/FUMODA) and separately to the North-West Parklands application (ref 11/90142/FULODA ) because the applicants are proposing a scheme which will not fulfil the covenant, which will not meet the amenity needs for cycle sport and will not be an 'improvement' on the ODA consented scheme which I support (ref 09/90410/FUMODA).

The promises of Olympic legacy should especially cover the one Olympic sport that was actually being done on the Olympic Park since 1975 when Eastway was provided by London through the Lee Valley Park as a purpose-built facility for the whole of London. All the planning permissions since 2007 - including 07/90010/OUMODA and 09/90410/FUMODA - have worked towards the provision of a Velopark on which I know many riders and cycle event organisers were consulted. The full designs were given planning permission last year and I was looking forward to resuming cycle sport activity on the site in May 2013. I know a lot of work was done and I would like to express my support fot the ODA scheme because it takes account of my needs as a rider who takes part in organised cycle sport events.

The trouble with the Alternative VeloPark proposal and the North-West Parklands applications is that neither I nor anyone I know in cycle sport was asked for an informed view about either scheme. I am concerned that the Velopark could not provide for my sport and become a White Elephant of London's Games. This would be a great opportunity missed, a waste of public funds and a promise broken.

**I object to the applications because they were not properly consulted with riders or cycle sport.
**
The applicants have stated their scheme is based on a need to secure "quality parkland, bordered by crescent housing and a river Lea". **I object to this because it seems to be highly prejudicial of due planning process **and against the cycle sport community, as if a cycle facility could not be quality parkland, when I know that Eastway became a Site of Importance to Nature Conservation.

I object to the NW Parklands application because it removes the cycle circuit and off-road trails from the parklands there. The applicants openly state they intend to obtain an enlarged development platform where the crescent of houses would be built by means of permission for an 'interim landscape'. This can not accord with the earlier consents and relevant development strategies of the OPLC, the local authorities and of your own planning authority.

The requirements for open space to be kept available for designation as Metropolitan Open Land are clear and the reinstatement of a sporting amenity can sit at the centre in pleasant parklands to be enjoyed by all. The facility we enjoyed at Eastway was 24ha and its MOL designation was solely due to its London-wide importance to cycle spot. The facility was created, funded and managed for the purpose and was very sustainable, being also an important open space for the surrounding communities and later it became a Site of Importance to Nature Conservation. We vacated the site only on receipt of the promise of a place in the legacy parklands, exactly as the LDA covenant defines. The ODA was pleased to spend over two years working with riders to bring forward a scheme in this exact area. It was properly consulted and gained planning consent for all the reasons given.

Taking their principal motivation to build on a park, the applicants' willingness to move the consented Velopark aside and incur extra cost on the public purse becomes clear. If the scheme were to be an 'improvement' this extra funding could be welcomed, but the scheme now being proposed by the OPLC is not fit-for-purpose. It will cost more, it is more complex to build, it makes less use of Games-time construction, it will take longer to prepare and it will not be a facility where national or even regional-level competition could take place. I have read a statement by British Cycling and another by the Lee Valley Park in support the ODA scheme too. There must be a reason for public bodies to be so outspoken.

At the very least I would expect a facility which offers

• A 1-mile road circuit which is suitable for bunch racing in safety

• A 1-mile road circuit which is suitable for time-trialling

• A mix of trails that could provide an MTB XC lap no shorter than 5km offering a lap duration of ideally between 10-15 minutes and offer enough scope for overtaking opportunities and challenging sections of singletrack

• A mix of course including amenity grass, tarmac and other off-road features suitable to provide a Cyclocross course no narrower than 3m width on a lap 2.5km – 3.5km

I can list some of the ways in which the features are much worse than the ODA scheme and worse than anything anywhere else.

• The road circuit has two turns which are tight and prolonged, making more than 190 degrees of turn. Being on raised embankments to pass over subways the circuit has to be fenced on both sides, so a rider could take a tangent off such a tight turn and either hit the barrier hard or worse still, could flip right over it and take a fall over 4m to the pathway beneath.

• Riders will need to be very cagey and constantly having to 'back-off' in order to be in control for around 80m of turning.

• The road circuit only offers about the same amount of climbing as Hillingdon circuit, which means riders will stay in a tight bunch, thus multiplying the chance of a big pile-up in the turns. This will lead to a risk-assessment that could greatly reduce the circuit capacity and make it even less likely to sustain for racing.

• The off-road trails are tightly concentrated on a small hill of less than 1.8ha with gradients of 25% - 12%. No trail here is more than 7 or 8m from another and switchback turns is the only way they can be connected or proceed around the hill. This keeps them to 1m in width. Whilst it may be good to have some of this type of trail, the monotony and tiny extent of this feature and the lack of overtaking opportunity would deter anyone from taking part in a mass-start race. Any connection to the wider network of trails is tenuous and hemmed-in by fences around the road circuit before it goes out into the ill-defined connecting trails to and from Eton Manor. This unsuitability for mass-start racing means the facility would fail, which would be a huge loss for the sport and for the diversity seen when the Beastway series would take over the whole of Eastway with full-on racing of the highest quality.

• The off-road area of the hill is not large enough for enjoyable leisure riding and the skills area poses the concern that an injured rider could lay unnoticed and out-of-sight for a long period. The skills area is high-maintenance and unsuitable for racing over.

• The appearance of all the barriers needed to keep off-road riders from the road circuit and for rider safety is highly intrusive and unsightly.

• The traffic noise and pollution on a site moved so near to the arterial A12 is not conducive to aerobic sport or any group activity.

• The hill is to be built out of 80,000m3 of recycled demolition rubble that will erode by weather and off-road riding to become a hazard.

• Off-road provision is completely unsuited to cyclocross which has rules requiring a course width of 3m or more and a length of 2.5 – 3.5km. The safety margin around the circuit offers the hazard of solid barriers, so must be avoided. The trails out into the wider parklands could not be risk-assessed since they cannot easily be hired for the sole use of cyclocross in the configuration that would remain after the NW Parklands are split off and the eastern riverbank reconfigured. The subways under the circuit are 3m wide, but there could be no way back for a loop of circuit to be completed.

**I object to the Alternative Velopark application because it does not offer the amenity needed for my sport.
**
**I object because it will not offer a lasting legacy and will not sustain as the legacy promise for sport **from London's Olympics on a site where that sport has a heritage. The opportunity to provide a cycle sport facility for ever after London's Games on the site of Eastway is too important to let go this way.

In its Proposal Outline to the application the OPLC states how it “has reviewed the Velopark scheme in the context of the broader Legacy Masterplan and has identified an opportunity to improve the individual cycling facilities, overall VeloPark, adjacent parklands and riverine setting.” (1.2.2 Proposal Overview). This material claim by the applicants to have brought an ‘improvement’ is simply not true when held up against the needs and specifications of an amenity for my sport.

The applicants may make any claim they wish but the public statement made above and the NW Parklands scheme’s strategy can be judged where it says;-

"4.4.12 As part of the Alternative North-West Parklands scheme an interim landscape zone (ILZ) is proposed, which is larger than the area designated for interim landscape in the consented PGT scheme. The OPLC has identified this area of landscape as an interim and temporary solution to reflect the Legacy Communities Masterplan launched in October 2010 and its ongoing dialogue with stakeholders regarding the long term use of this area for residential development.”

• Planning Statement of application 11/90142/FULODA -
  
  

The NW Parklands application would not bring any real improvement to the open space, ecology or environmental interest in this part of the park, especially since the consented velopark was approved for its contribution to all these aspects, The ha-ha feature will actually make this part of the parklands less permeable for pedestrian access, the amenity grasslands will reduce ecological interest and the scheme opens up no more riverbank to public access. Looking into the near future when the application is made for a wider development platform, the parklands could be lost under built development and a wide area of associated 'defensible territory' effectively enclosed between the houses and the ha-ha. This is not be allowed within an area that is defined by earlier planning policy as public realm with potential to become Metropolitan Open Land. This is material ground for objection and is potential ground for Judicial Review as abuse of process in planning policy.

All previous planning decisions have protected parkland in the Olympic Park for return as MOL. Planning decisions are based on stated policies and strategies, as well as precedent to help determine such things as whether open parklands can be built on by developers. The OPLC makes no detailed statement of its policies or objectives so planning authorities are needed to help it have respect for codes and policies in planning. The relevant core strategies for LB Hackney and for the Olympic Parklands all identify the bulk of the applicants 'interim landscape' as open space suitable for return as MOL. The applicants have made the assumption they might get planning consent later on, which prejudice has caused them to think it worth removing the consented velopark from the scheme's boundary.

**I object to this as abuse of due planning procedure and to the absence of a clear statement of planning policy or strategy.

I object to the removal of the Velopark from the boundary of the NW parklands and I object to the NW parklands application.
**
Both OPLC applications invite comparison with the ODA consented scheme by claims to be an 'improvement'.

The ODA can open sooner, will cost less, uses more Games-time infrastructure into legacy, requires no removal of a bridge and a road, it offers the amenity I need for my sport.

**I object to the OPLC applications and support the ODA consents.
**
The applicants’ scheme for the ‘Alternative Velopark’ does not offer any material ‘improvement’ in its amenity, ecology or environment. When compared to the ODA consented scheme it is more complex to manage properly and marginalises sport into a roadside area which is not a pleasant parkland setting. It is more costly, more complex and will take longer to build by reason of the Games-time features that have to be removed.

I object to the applicants' Velopark scheme on grounds of it being

• not fit-for-purpose as a cycle sport facility,

• inadequate on grounds of amenity

• incapable to deliver an Olympic Legacy provision for national or regional level sport

• unsuitable on environmental grounds,

• unsuited to the site,

• subject to ambient noise, groundwater, waste materials and airborne pollution.

**I object to the applicants' Velopark and NW Parklands schemes on grounds of their claim for it to be an 'improvement' when it plainly is not.
**
Yours sincerely,

There's a few grammatical and spelling errors in there Oliver, and it seems rather wordy and reactionary if you don't mind me saying. Not particularly concise or measured.

And no, I don't have time to rewrite it.

it seems rather wordy and reactionary if you don't mind me saying. Not particularly concise or measured.

And no, I don't have time to rewrite it.

That seems to be Michael Humphreys all over, not sure how effective his style is.

There's a few grammatical and spelling errors in there Oliver, and it seems rather wordy and reactionary if you don't mind me saying. Not particularly concise or measured.

Fortunately, this is of no importance at all in commenting on planning applications. :)

If you don't expect it to be read then why not write a shorter letter?

Bit in Cycling Weakly:
http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest/521978/velopark-last-chance-to-have-your-say.html

including pics

1 picture > 1000 words

Clearly they can't afford the two bridges.

I think the bridges are already in place, the revised plans see one being demolished if I recall correctly.

If you don't expect it to be read then why not write a shorter letter?

You should see the actual detailed letter of objection. :)

We're certainly expecting it to be read. I do apologise for less than perfect drafting, but it includes the salient points and will do the job. The content of the letter is well-researched.

It is true that if people are able to engage with the issues and redraft such a letter to express their comments in their own words, then that is better than a lot of copied-and-pasted letters arriving, but as usual, it's a consultation deadline that puts us as volunteers under considerable time pressure.

Do send your comments, based or not based on the letter, as they all help.

I think the bridges are already in place, the revised plans see one being demolished if I recall correctly.

That's correct. The ostensible reason for the change is a worry about park design where the western loop crosses the river. We don't accept this argument, as we think that the western loop makes an attractive landscaped feature and moreover masks the rest of the park from the A12 Lea Interchange. It is also permeable, as the riverside path continues under the two bridges carrying the circuit.

I think the bridges are already in place, the revised plans see one being demolished if I recall correctly.

That's quite barmy, bridges is expensive shit

http://www.britishcycling.org.uk/track/article/bc20110324-Olympic-Park-Legacy-statement

Good work by BC. Lots of other comments going in. Keep them coming!

Looks like the OPLC have compromised:

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest/529795/olympic-velopark-future-looks-clearer-as-leading-bodies-reach-agreement-on-proposals.html

Sort of. We're not out of the woods yet.

It's looking much more positive now, the remaining issues to be resolved involve fencing off the park to stop people aimlessly wondering onto the off road trails:

http://londoncyclesport.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5048&Itemid=57

Good work by everyone who raised objections.

Final design approved:

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest/531961/london-velopark-proposals-get-green-light.html

And a big 'well done' to Michael Humphreys, who's done an unimaginably huge amount of work on this over the last few years. He's quite possibly the most tireless campaigner I've ever met. Without him, none of this success would have been possible.

Is there any news on the flats converted from athlete accommodation? Price etc?