Tag Archives: Olympic Delivery Authority

The Retention of Information Act

Posted on by
Reply

In September 2011, Spectacle submitted a Freedom Of Information request regarding permission for the planned structures in Greenwich park. When Freedom Of Information requests are submitted, the relevant bodies are obliged to respond within 20 days. After the prescribed 20 days, Greenwich Council’s planning body did reply, but only to inform us that there would be a delay in responding to our request.

After one month of delays they gave an incomplete answer, regarding different planned structures saying planning permission applications were submitted in March 2010.

After further enquiries and a further month of delays, the FOI response detailed the planning applications for the structures we actually enquired after, with the date of submission at the beginning of November 2011 – some time after Spectacle’s enquiry, and considerably longer after March 2010.

If you would like to see how other Olympic FOI requests are handled visit WhatDoTheyKnow

Click London Olympics for more blogs
See our Olympics project pages for more information and videos.
Or visit PlanA our general blog on urbanism, planning and architecture.

Spectacle homepage
Befriend Spectacle.Docs on Facebook
Follow SpectacleMedia on Twitter

Whose Common is it, really?

Posted on by
Reply

The Olympic Delivery Authority/London Organising Committee of the Olympic and Paralympic Games (ODA/LOCOG) expected Greenwich Council to grant planning permission for Circus Field to be used for the purposes of the Olympics, even though no details of the proposed use have been included in the public consultation documents.

To this end, LOCOG wanted to be able to enclose parts of the grounds for the equestrian events there. However, for this they needed permission from a Regional Development Authority. This little legal mechanism is to avoid national authorities from riding roughshod over smaller, regional areas.

To get around such sticky planning issues, the London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act 2006, was drafted to include, among the purposes of a Regional Development Authority (s.36(1)), the task of preparing for the Olympic Games. However, by virtue of s.36(2), the may only prepare directly “at the request of the Olympic Delivery Authority.” Therefore the responsibility of the Regional Development Authority (specifically now the London Development Agency) is acting at the request of the ODA, in this instance, in acquiring a short lease of Circus Field from the Crown Estates owner of this part of the registered common. Part of the Olympics Act (Section 36 paragraph 3(c)) also stated that “no enactment regulating the use of commons, open spaces or allotments shall prevent or restrict the use of the land for construction, other works or any other purpose (but this paragraph does not disapply a requirement for planning permission)”.

All of this means is that the ODA can directly order the Regional Development Authority to apply for permission to build on whatever common they so desire.

However, as Mrs. Mawhood, who works independently and on behalf of NOGOE 2012, has pointed out, Circus Field is not a “registered common”, it is Metropolitan Common Land. This places it in the remit of the Metropolitan Commons Supplemental Act 1871, which creates its own restrictions: “The Commissioners shall not entertain an application for the enclosure of a metropolitan common, or any part thereof” (Section 5) This does suggest that a separate act of parliament is required to enclose a Metropolitan Common…

Nothing will stop LOCOG though! They have have now signed a tenancy of 12 months granted by the Crown Estate to the ODA by virtue of new legislation. This agreement overrides the need for any permission (apart from planning) from Greenwich.

This only lends yet more credibility to the accusation that the Olympics is not a project which listens to opposition, especially on planning grounds, where the rules are simply rewritten to suit the project’s needs.

 

Click London Olympics for more blogs
See our Olympics project pages for more information and videos.
Or visit PlanA our general blog on urbanism, planning and architecture.

 

Spectacle homepage
Befriend Spectacle.Docs on Facebook
Follow SpectacleMedia on Twitter

Unexploded bomb could lie underneath Olympic Stadium

Posted on by
Reply

The Olympic Delivery Authority has dismissed claims that there could be an unexploded bomb lying beneath its Stratford stadium.

However, according to Government records, a German bomb dropped in a tip on the exact site of the stadium during the Blitz.
Records exist of bombings during the war, which state that a large hole was left in a rubbish shoot at the refuse site after an air-raid. Despite several searches throughout the 1940s, no bomb was uncovered at the site.

A report by weapons company BAE Systems for the Government in 2007 concluded that explosive material must lie beneath the site of the stadium of the intensity of air raids in the area during the war.

A spokesman for the ODA said that more than 3,000 searches for unexploded bombs had been carried out across the Olympic Park, including the Marshgate Lane stadium.

For full article click here.

Click London Olympics for more blogs
Or visit PlanA our general blog on urbanism, planning and architecture.
See our Olympics project pages for more information and videos.

Spectacle homepage
Befriend Spectacle.Docs on Facebook
Follow SpectacleMedia on Twitter

Gagging for Olympic Funding?

Posted on by
Reply

The Olympic Delivery Authority (ODA) have recently advertised some (Arts Council backed) opportunities for arts organisations, curators and producers to establish some participatory projects and temporary commissions for the areas immediately surrounding the Olympic Park site August 2010 to December 2011.

The applications can be made on the London 2012 organisers and the London Development Agency (LDA)’s online ‘dating agency’ website set up for the purpose of securing business contracts for London 2012 public sector work and other major contract opportunities.

Seeing as it’s necessary to register on the CompeteFor website to view these opportunities, my eyes were drawn to the final part of  section number 14.4 of their terms and conditions. Particularly section C:

14.4 You further agree not to:

(c) do anything which would have an adverse effect on or embarrass any Games Body, or any official supporter or sponsor of the Games.


The site’s facilities are available only to those who agree with these terms and conditions. Therefore anything which might potentially embarrass the Games Bodies, supporters or sponsors is forbidden for organisations who wish to sign up. Surely the sponsors of the 2012 Olympic have nothing to be embarrassed or even criticised about?


Oh right…

When they said “warming up”, perhaps BP and EDF took that literally? Which other sponsors might illicit some controversies? Surely not Coca Cola, McDonalds or Lloyds? Or British Airways even?

The page does not signify whether signing up to these terms and conditions includes any prior or future ’embarrassments’, potentially any groups, producers or curators who apply for the commission are blocked from it if in the past they have made any ’embarrassing’ comments or gestures towards any of these sponsors or the ODA.

Not only then are the proposed artists or groups commissioned for the project gagged from making any criticisms of these illustrious sponsors. But any who may have previously criticised these sponsors are not only excluded from the selection process but they’re not even allowed to use the CompeteFor website. The website claims it wants: “To ensure the transparency and availability of London 2012 opportunities maximising the number and diversity of businesses contributing to the London 2012 programme, and create a legacy of increased capacity and expertise.” Perhaps making organisations agree to their gagging order isn’t the best way to encourage ‘transparency’.