After giving the Olympics planning permission in March, Greenwich Council may dare to hope that the issue is over. I’m much less sure. It would, for instance, be wrong to see the recent council elections, at which Labour was re-elected, as providing any endorsement for the council’s policy. All the opposition parties supported the Olympics, too.
More importantly, and more dangerously for the council, the way Greenwich made its decision appears to be in direct breach of two key principles of planning law and the Local Government Code of Conduct, and of broader legal principles governing the way in which public bodies must make decisions.
Under these rules, local authorities and their members have a duty to approach planning applications with an open mind and without prejudgment. They are under an absolute legal requirement to invite objections, consider them properly and go through a full consultation process. They are supposed to judge each application on its merits, carefully examining the details presented to them for compliance with their planning policies.
And there were many details. Locog’s application amounted to thousands of pages – setting out all the things the council was supposed to think about before it gave the go-ahead. We can, however, definitively prove that the entire process was a charade. Long before any actual application was presented, the council stated publicly that its mind was made up. Before even a single objector was heard, the council said, in effect, that they would all be ignored. Before even a single page of evidence was produced, the council made clear that the application would be passed.
The key piece of evidence is Greenwich Time, the council’s propaganda newspaper, performing a useful service for perhaps the first time in its sorry life.
On 9 September 2008, more than a year before the planning application was even submitted, a Greenwich Time headline about the proposal piped: “Course the Royal Park will be fine!” and described the park’s hosting of the events not as an if, but as a when (“The o2, Greenwich Park, Woolwich Barracks – three world-class venues that will put Greenwich firmly on the world stage when they host up to a third of the events at the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games.”)
On 30 September 2008, Greenwich Time trumpeted: “A first look at the new [Olympic] cross-country [course] map – and it looks just great!”
On 6 October 2008, Greenwich Time described the park’s use for the Olympics as a “field of dreams” and stated: “The Olympic and Paralympic Games are coming to London – and Greenwich – in 2012… at the 02, Greenwich Park and Woolwich Barracks… Let the excitement sink in.” It described the use of the park as a “’natural’ for the Games” which would offer an “unparalleled opportunity” for the area. This is the council’s official voice speaking, don’t forget. Does it sound a bit like prejudgment to you?
On 8 December 2009, just after the planning application went in, Greenwich Time announced: Greenwich will host a number of Paralympic sports in 2012… The Paralympic equestrian events will be held at Greenwich Park.” The same words were used in an official council press release, four days before.
And on the morning of the planning meeting itself, 23 March 2010, Greenwich Time plopped onto my mat complete with a big map showing the Park as an Olympic venue and a double-page spread on how “a temporary arena will be built within the Park to host the equestrian events.” Actually, boys, at that stage it was still theoretically an “if” – because you hadn’t made your decision, remember?
In an age when even the most trivial decision has to be consulted on, at the risk otherwise of being struck down by the courts, Greenwich Council has left a huge flank open here. Of course, many such decisions are fixed well in advance. Consultations and suchlike procedures are usually shams. But great care is normally taken to pretend, to go through the motions of open-mindedness. I can’t remember any case in the past where a public authority has so blatantly announced the outcome at the beginning of the decision-making process.
This indisputable evidence that the council acted with predetermination and a closed mind seems to me to offer significant scope for legal or other challenge.
Well said Gilligan.
A combination of inadequate work by the Council and the overwhelming present need to reduce wastefulness by public bodies like LOCOG may yet save the Park and serve the people.
Moving the equestrian events out og Greenwich Park would also give the equestrians a better, safer, venue where there could be a positive legacy for the sport.
Dermot Glynn
Oh Dear, here we go again. You helpfully point out that the re-election of the council was not an endorsement of the Olympic bid because all parties support the plan. So my question to you is simple.
Why were no opponents standing as independants on the issue, why not for the general election too? I mean opposition is clearly so strong that such candidates would sweep the board, we would have a concil completely made up of those opposing the plan!
Or maybe the truth is a little different, maybe the overwhelming majority of voters did consider the olympics, as well as everything else that the council has been up to (including the rejection of the market development) and decided that on balance they were happy with the situation.
I don’t see much difference between your comments here and they typical “ringing endorsement of oour policies” stance we get from the political parties the morning after they’ve been thumped in a by-election!
Still I guess only 2 more years and you may stop banging on about this.
Darren, the Green Party Parliamentary candidate did come out against having the equestrian events in the Park – though not, of course, against the Olympics as a whole. But that stance was advertised only on-line.
I doubt very much that the electorate in the local elections gave any thought at all to the Olympics – why should they think that they could make any difference at all by objecting – the Council has made it clear for the past 18 months that it was a done deal, and since the Planning Board made its decision (without considering all the material evidence) most people will think it is done and dusted. The Council’s announcement that planning consent had been given didn’t mention the 42 or so planning conditions.
After the Planning Board meeting, the Council contacted Thames Water to say – oops – Thames Water’s comments were not put before the Planning Board for their consideration. Thames Water have requested additional information and safeguards to ensure the proposal meets their requirements. LOCOG is going to have to submit the information requested by Thames Water before development can commence. This information will need to be agreed in writing by Greenwich Council following consultation with Thames Water. If LOCOG cannot satisfy the requirements of Thames Water, the LOCOG will not be able to implement the planning permission.
The Coalition promises to curb council-run newspapers – hahahahaha –
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2010/may/20/council-run-newspapers-local-newspapers
what will The Dear Leader do when he can’t use Greenwich Time to promote himself and print tractor statistics.
Were the articles in Greenwich Time a statement of policy or an editorial prediction of the (sadly, entirely predictable) outcome?
Is there a body with the time, money and talent to raise a challenge?
If there is, what chance of its winning in the courts and imposing a last-minute change of plan when the sheer weight of the establishment and the embarrassment to the nation is unlikely to not affect the judgement?
Very slim I would think.
Never forget the herd instinct of political parties, Darren – the way in which both a government and its opponents can all get corralled into supporting really, really bad things (the Iraq war being one example).
Well said Andrew. Also Tessa Jowell was heard on the radio weeks before the Planning Meeting, proclaiming that the events in Greenwich Park would go ahead heedless of the Planning Consent required. Councillor John Fahy told early objectors that it “Was A Done Deal” and they were wasting their time protesting. If it had not gone through, Nick Raynsford MP would have lost face with the ODA through his chairmanship of Rockpools who had recruited them . Leader of the Council Chris Roberts had to move wards to ensure he got enough votes to stay in office. Most of the Councillors appeared not to have read the planning application in full and did not consider many of the Planning aspect swhich is what they were required to do, instead concentrating on non-planning issues such as job opportunities for volunteers and horse riding for children. They were not presented with contentious facts by the Officers such as Thames Water’s concerns about providing enough water and dealing with sewage. The Bat Survey which had been called off because the surveyor had heard gunshots but had not called the Police – to name just two. The written objections to the Planning Application outweighed the support by some 2,300 to 36. At the Planning Meeting the objectors were a cross-section of the community but the supporters were mostly Councillors or friends of LOCOG – yet it still went through because obviously the Labour Councillors had to support the party line………….. The only credit the Council can be given is to insist on 43 conditions but how will they enforce penalties if LOCOG fail to comply?
This is not the only aspect of this whole saga where the Council, LOCOG and the DCMS think they are above the law.
Why are the Friends of Greenwich Park saying, on their web site, that the current cable-laying by EDF in the Park is “to supply electricity to the new Granite Wharf development”? Don’t the Friends know Greenwich at all? Granite Wharf is a looooong way from the Park, beyond the old power station.
Call me cynical but could this be LOCOG telling the Friends to mislead their membership and the public about the cable which is really for the Olympic stadium? Are the Friends being useful idiots or conniving with LOCOG to keep people in the dark?
More ammo:
House of Lords
5 January 2010
Olympic and Paralympic Games 2012
http://services.parliament.uk/hansard/Lords/ByDate/20100105/mainchamberdebates/part012.html
Lord James of Blackheath: …” The next area that we need to look at is that of Greenwich Park, not because of whether it is in or out—I am assuming that that is a done deal”
London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games – Culture, Media and Sport Committee Contents
Examination of Witnesses (Questions 1-)
LORD COE, MR PAUL DEIGHTON, MR JOHN ARMITT CBE AND MR DAVID HIGGINS
15 DECEMBER 2009
http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmcumeds/192/09121502.htm
“Q128 Paul Farrelly: Planning committees can be fairly unpredictable in my experience. Do you think it is a formality?
Lord Coe: No. We have 117 planning applications and I do not think we would consider any of them to be a formality, but of course it does have the advantage of the complete support of the local authority in helping us put this through.”
Yes, dear reader, only days after the formal public consultation process started, and three whole months before the planning board meeting, Lord Coe felt assured enough to say that the outcome (planning consent) of the LOCOG planning application was a foregone conclusion, and in that he had Greenwich Council’s 100 per cent support in prejudicing the outcome.
In light of the new government’s apparent desire and willingnness to cut Olympic spend http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8680178.stm I would have thought the Greenwich antis would be pursuing the ‘Greenwich will cost more than Badminton/Hickstead etc, easy savings this way’ angle.
I can’t help feeling that would be more fruitful than ‘Greenwich Council was in favour even before it read the planning application, if indeed it did read the application, which we think it didn’t.’
And I think there is a conversation to be had around the lack of impact that this issue seemed to have on the council election. While all parties were in favour, there’s no doubt that Labour were more closely associated with the Olympics than other parties and yet they did not suffer at the polls – quite the reverse. Clearly this was not the only issue at stake, and it was after the event, but you’d expect to see some kind of reaction at least (to this, Cutty Sark, Greenwich Time, Heart of East Greenwich etc).
Will said, “they [Labour] did not suffer at the polls” because of being associated with the Olympics. The Council’s continuing propaganda on this subject is designed to induce defeatism in its readers. Look at the press release issued by the Council after the planning board – you’d think that the planning permission had been without constraints on LOCOG – no mention that there were 42 or so planning conditions.
Probably because the Council does not have a hope of an ice cream in Hell of enforcing those conditions. This is a very good way of undermining the electorate’s faith in all democratic processes and the rule of law. Why should any of us obey the laws of the land when neither the Government nor the local authority do so?