Formula-E Review OSC draft 4

Draft 12

– 16.11.15

PAPER NO.

15-***

WANDSWORTH BOROUGH COUNCIL

COMMUNITY SERVICES OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE –

24TH NOVEMBER 2015

EXECUTIVE – 30TH NOVEMBER 2015

Report by the Director of Housing and Community Services on a review of the Formula E event held in Battersea Park on 27th and 28th June 2015.

SUMMARY

Following the Council’s in principle decision in Paper No. 14-651 to conclude a five-year

Venue Use Agreement for the staging of a Formula E motor racing event in Battersea

Park, planning permission was granted by the Planning Applications Committee of 18th

February 2015 (application number 2014-6976).

The event was successfully held, as scheduled, on 27th and 28th June 2015 and this report now gives details of a review of the event, including the results of a public consultation survey. There was positive national and international coverage of the event, but also some elements of sustained and vociferous opposition, particularly from residents local to the park and from regular users of the park. Members are therefore asked to consider both the opposition to the event and the benefits as detailed in the report and to decide whether, subject to future planning applications/approvals, approval be given for the event to continue for the next two seasons (events in 2016 and 2017) until the next break clause in the Venue Use Agreement, which will be in the autumn of 2017.

The Director of Finance The Director of Finance comments that the main financial consequences of the hosting of Formula E to the Council are contained within the associated confidential paper 15-445A. The hosting of Formula E delivers a net financial benefit to the Council and a commitment has been made to invest £1m over the potential five years of the agreement for the purposes of delivering improvements within the park itself.

The Overview and Scrutiny Committee are asked to decide whether to recommend to the

Executive that the event should continue in the Park for the 2016 and 2017 seasons.

GLOSSARY

Page 1 of 50

(Paper No. 15-xxx)

Formula E review

FE

– Formula E Holdings Ltd

SAG – Safety Advisory Group

HLF – Heritage Lottery Fund

HIA

– Heritage Impact Assessment

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. The Community Services Overview and Scrutiny Committee are asked to make a recommendation to the Executive as to whether, subject to planning permission and all other necessary permissions and approvals, the event should continue for the

2016 and 2017 seasons until further review at the next break clause point in the

Venue Use Agreement in autumn 2017.

2. If the Community Services Overview and Scrutiny Committee approve any additional views, comments or recommendations on this report these will be submitted to the Executive or to the appropriate regulatory or other committees for consideration.

3. The Executive is asked to consider the recommendation of the Community Services

Overview and Scrutiny Committee and decide, subject to planning permission and all other necessary permissions and approvals, whether the event should continue for the 2016 and 2017 seasons until further review at the next break clause point in the Venue Use Agreement in autumn 2017.

INTRODUCTION

4. This report outlines a review of the Formula E event, including an extensive public consultation exercise, and seeks a decision on whether it should continue in

Battersea Park. The event organisers have stated that they consider the two

Battersea Park races in June 2015 to have been excellent events, providing a fitting finale to the first global programme of Formula E. That being so, they have indicated a wish to continue staging two races in Battersea Park in 2016 and 2017, until the next break clause (autumn 2017) in the five-year agreement.

BACKGROUND

5. Following the Counci l’s decision in Paper No. 14-651 to conclude a five-year Venue

Use Agreement for the staging of the Formula E event, planning permission was granted by the Planning Applications Committee of 18th February 2015 (application number 2014-6976).

BUILD

6.

Initial ‘hard’ preparatory works (for elements like chicanes) were scheduled to be carried out in March 2015; these were largely completed on time with limited ‘drift’ into early April. There were a limited number of complaints from the public at this point, but the main public reaction proved to be to the

‘build’ period which was for a two-week period, commencing Monday 15th June, with deliveries of material

Page 2 of 50


Formula E review commencing on Saturday 13th June 2015. The park remained open to the public during this period, but was subject to extensive construction works and HGV movements. The build programme was nevertheless completed on schedule and enabled the event to take place on 27th and 28th June 2015, as planned.

THE EVENT

7. The Park was largely closed for the two-day period of the event, apart from (by public request) the Riverside Walk and another area adjacent to the eastern edge of the park which were kept open for limited public access. These areas were wellused during the two days by the general public. A number of complaints were received about the impact of the event itself, but these were again relatively few compared to complaints about the build process and the general impact on the park.

Complaints about the event itself largely centred on tannoy noise/music (which were nevertheless within the noise limits set for the event) and the noise from a helicopter used for filming. 27 complaints were directly received by the Council in respect of this noise. (NB - these matters are addressed further on in this report in respect of more audience earpieces would be provided for any future event in order to reduce tannoy noise and the potential for alternatives to, or reduction of use of helicopters would be explored). Car parking in the area around the park was satisfactorily controlled, public transport coped well and there were no traffic issues.

8. Audience figures were largely as expected: 27,000 on the Saturday and 28,500 on the Sunday, against a capped maximum of 30,000 per day. There have been several suggestions on social media that audience figures were substantially lower, but these are not supported by the figures provided by Formula E and the figures of

27,000 and 28,500 are in line with audiences at other Formula E events in other countries.

9. Attendance by Borough residents, obtained via postcode details (where available) from Ticketmaster, was estimated to be some 7,000 over the two days, equating to

12.6%. Unlike other events in the FE global series and indeed other motorsport events generally, the combination of an inner-city park setting, and a reasonablypriced ‘grounds entry only’ ticket, appears to have encouraged more families and local people to attend than might otherwise have been expected.

10. The national and motoring press, after some concerns regarding the circuit following

Saturday’s event (remedial action was immediately taken by Formula E the same evening to remedy the position) generally judged the two races to have been a successful finale to the first season of Formula E races. Press comments included:



(BBC) ‘One of the key FIA strategies for Formula E was attracting a new and younger audience to motorsport, not just the environmentally conscious. At

Battersea Park it was evident there were many families present, in among the

60,000 crowd over the two days. A major reason for this was the ticket pricing and the city location. An early bird ticket for the London event was £15.

Compare that to next weekend's British Grand Prix, which allows children under 10 to attend for free, but where the cheapest race day tickets are priced at £99.’

Page 3 of 50





(The Guardian) ‘There will be some who dismiss the first international motor racing event to be held in London for 43 years, since the last meeting at

Crystal Palace in 1972, as the sport returning with a whimper rather than a bang, but that would be to do Saturday’s all-electric Formula E race a disservice. The battery-powered cars admittedly make very little noise but that they are here amid an atmosphere of positivity and a real sense that there is a future for the series, is something the sport should celebrate.

Equally the return could not have had a better location. Entering Battersea

Park, the light and shade of trees and parkland was reminiscent of the glorious landscape of Imola. A favourable comparison if ever there was one, although perhaps one lost on the temporarily displaced dog walkers and joggers of Carriage Drive, which now boasted a 1.81 mile, 17-turn track in the heart of the capital.

’



(The Telegraph)

‘The race was the perfect advert for this upstart series which was little more than an idea on a piece of paper three years ago. More than

50,000 came to Battersea Park over the two days, not far from capacity.

There was a lively atmosphere at the event, as spectators wandered freely to see these lively machines negotiate the bumps and narrow roads around the park.

’

DE-RIGGING

11. Dismantling (‘de-rigging’) of the circuit and its infrastructure was scheduled for the period Monday 29th June to Friday 3rd July 2015. Within this period, the Park remained closed (apart from the Riverside Walk and eastern segment mentioned above) for Monday and Tuesday 29th and 30th June and reopened to the general public on the morning of Wednesday 1st July. There was a delay in re-opening the limited public-access areas of the park (i.e. the Riverside Walk and the eastern boundary segment), on Monday 29th due to fencing having been removed too early by one of the event organiser’s contractors. This meant that the public were potentially able to access areas where extensive de-rigging processes were taking place and so Council officers took the decision to initially keep the park completely closed. After remedial action by Formula E’s management, the area was re-secured and the two public-access areas re-opened on the afternoon of Monday, 29th June.

12. As scheduled, the great majority of de-rigging took place on Monday and Tuesday, to the extent that it was agreed it was safe to fully re-open the Park on Wednesday

1st July, as planned. The only change to this was that one pedestrian gate was temporarily left closed on the Wednesday morning while de-rigging work was progressing immediately inside the gate. From Wednesday, considerable numbers of the general public were again using the Park and by the Friday afternoon, the

Park was largely back to normal and it is considered that there was little to disrupt enjoyment of the park from Thursday onwards.

Page 4 of 50



COUNCIL’S SAFETY ADVISORY GROUP (SAG)

13. SAGs are coordinated by the Council’s Environmental Health Service and are held for large events or where there is a concern about public safety. SAGs are nonstatutory bodies set up to provide a forum for discussing and advising on public safety at an event. They aim to help organisers (in this case Formula E) with the planning and management of an event and to encourage cooperation and coordination among all relevant agencies. It has no statutory authority. The SAG for

Formula E was made up of: Environmental Services

– Health, Safety & Licencing;

F ormula E’s Events Team; Formula E’s contractors: Circuit Design & Build, Security and First Aid; WBC ’s Events Team; Safety Consultants (employed by WBC); WBC

Highways; WBC Building Control; Metropolitan Police Service; London Ambulance

Service; London Fire Brigade; TfL Event Operations (including representatives for e.g. buses, underground and overground); and railway operators.

14. As part of this process, the organisers were required to compile a comprehensive

Event Management Plan covering all aspects of the event itself and this document ran to approximately 2500 pages. Prior to the event a tabletop exercise was carried out and this was designed to test the plan using a variety of different and escalating scenarios. The SAG for the Formula E event did not include the set up and de-rig of the event. A final, post-event SAG was held on 7th July 2015 and its conclusion was that, as a two-day event, the Formula E races had been safe and successful.

COUNCIL’S EVENTS MANAGEMENT, PARKS AND SPECIALIST SAFETY

ADVISOR

15. Responsibility for risk assessment and safety control in the build and de-rigging periods rested with the event organiser who employed its own Safety Officer. While the Council has its own professional and well-experienced Events Team, it was nevertheless considered that specialist expertise in respect of the safety of motor sport events was required to help advise the Council. As a result, and after consultation with the Director of Finance, a specialist consultancy company (Capita

Symonds) was engaged and was not only involved as part of the SAG, but also attended the Park during build, event and de-rig periods. The consultants kept a watching brief on the event organiser’s operations, attending formal daily planning meetings involving Formula E a nd the Council’s Parks and Events staff, and giving direct feedback to the relevant contact as and when any issues were identified. The cost of this consultancy was £22,540 and is to be met from the income from the event.

16. The view of the Council’s events and parks staff, as supported by Capita Symonds was that, as with any new event, there was a steep learning curve and the need for dynamic risk management based upon the nature of the event, the operations required for event delivery and the environment in which the event took place.

Consequently, snagging and a proactive enabling approach to the event was needed and implemented. The recommendations of Capita Symonds, with offic ers’ comments in italics after each element, were that the following improvements could be made to further ensure the safety of the event, its build and de-rigging:

Page 5 of 50


Formula E review i) Event paperwork: the event paperwork needs to be reviewed to ensure that it is event specific, suitable and sufficient and that public and crowd safety is adequately considered and addressed. Paperwork needs to be submitted in a timely manner.

Response: it is agreed that event paperwork could have been received earlier to ensure officers had more time to confirm its adequacy. An earlier start would be made for any future event and the Council would provide additional detail in respect of key dates and deadlines for submissions by Formula E. ii) Communications: communications between all parties involved in the delivery of the event need to be more cohesive, open and honest with a shared goal which ultimately has to be a safe, successful event. External communications in relation to the general public and event visitors need to be clearer and better defined with improved pre event, build up and live event signage and way finding.

Response: this was the first occasion on which the various parties had worked together and it is accepted that inter-departmental and inter-agency communications and information sharing among all parties involved in the delivery of the event could be improved and t he Council’s IT infrastructure would be reviewed in order to try to facilitate more efficient sharing of PDF files, dropbox links etc. External communications in relation to the general public and event visitors would be improved for any future event, with more information available from both the Council and Formula E. iii) Security and Stewarding: the appointment of sufficient numbers of qualified and competent security and stewarding is essential to the safe delivery of the event. Security and stewarding staff need to be experienced in dealing with the public, able to communicate effectively and properly briefed and supplied with the right tools to enable them to delivery against their contracted responsibilities.

Having sufficient numbers of staff to allow for contingencies and also ensure that their individual welfare needs are addressed should be factored into any pre planning. Improved internal traffic management is also required and consideration to the appointment of a professional traffic management company to look after onsite vehicle movements is advised.

Response: security and stewarding staff would be better briefed and Formula E have indicated that the appointment of a traffic management company would be included in the scope of any future event. The Council would want to see further segregation of vehicle movements/build operations from continuing public use of the park; iv) Public Safety: review the appointment of safety professionals who can capture all aspects of the event. It is recognised that the race operations are a specialist function but the build, live event and de-rig could be covered off more efficiently by careful scrutiny and selection of your chosen safety supplier.

Response: Formula E have suggested that for any future event, a Site

Manager would be appointed as part of design and planning in order to provide

Page 6 of 50


Formula E review a clear point of contact for Park management, holding appropriate levels of authority across operations carried out by all contractors/concessions. This would assist with an overview of safety provision.

v) Build and De-Rig: a more detailed production schedule for both the build and de-rig is required with all relevant resources for the delivery of event safety engaged, briefed, competent and in sufficient numbers so as to facilitate the task. Improved signage and public safety information and interface are required.

Better communicating and enforcement of site rules and regulations is required to maintain safety standards.

Response: the requirements of the Construction (Design and Management)

Regulations (CDM) were observed, but a more detailed production schedule for both the build and de-rig would be produced, with all relevant resources for the delivery of event safety engaged, briefed, competent and in sufficient numbers so as to facilitate the task. Communication and enforcement of site rules would be improved.

Consider maintaining a suitable level of security for the perimeter and gate security along with maintenance of the perimeter fence lines during de-rig to prevent people getting into site during the closed dates.

Response: this would be addressed and improved for any future event, including a detailed schedule for de-rigging which would have prevented public access during the two closed days after the event. This was, however, addressed by

Formula E when the problem arose on the morning after the event.

Good internal, interdepartmental and inter-agency communications and information sharing in relation to any accidents, injuries and incidents will help to reduce any future incidents and improve worked/public safety.

Response: as above re Communications, improvements would be made to joint working if the event continues. vi) Live Event: a better briefed and resourced security team is needed along with more consistent security checks, improved visitor interface and greater enforcement of exclusion zones and restricted areas is needed.

17. Capita Symonds also commented:

Response: experience learned from the first event would be applied to any future event in order to ensure adequate on-site security.

‘It is important to note all the hard work and commitment made by all parties in ensuring the delivery of this event. To also thank everyone for engaging with the Capita team during the pre event planning stages, build, delivery and de-rig phases of the event. Finally it is the purpose of this report to highlight issues identified with the planning and implementation of the event along with area for improvement, in doing so it can often portray an illusion of an event besieged with problems as we seldom focus on the positives. Let

Page 7 of 50


Formula E review us not lose sight of the fact that the event was delivered with, so far as we are aware, no major injuries or incidents.

’

18. If the event were to continue, the above observations and recommendations would be the subject of detailed discussion with Formula E who have already pledged that they would work closely with the Council to lessen the impact of the site build and de-rig process. These observations should nevertheless be seen as part of the learning process for a new and complex event and the measures undertaken for the

2015 races resulted in a safe and successful inaugural event.

HERITAGE LOTTERY FUND (HLF)

19. The Head of the HLF for London visited the Park, post-event, on 29th July 2015. In subsequent correspondence with the Council, while seeking reassurance regarding remedial work to address a number of temporary impacts on the fabric of the Park, he acknowledged that the HLF’s award of £7.5m in 1998 was principally focused on the historic core of the Park, and that core appeared to have been unaffected by the racing.

Officers are confident that the remedial measures listed by the HLF are all, with the sole exception of tyre marks, already in hand or have been addressed. The report on a review of the Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) has been sent to the

HLF and, should it be decided that the event continues, officers would continue to liaise with the HLF in order to ensure that the P ark’s heritage features are protected.

HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT (HIA)

20. The full findings of the independent 52-page Heritage Impact Assessment

(commissioned by the Council with HLF approval, but funded by Formula E) are available in the Members’ Room and were published on the Council’s Formula E web pages in September 2015. T he report’s summary conclusions and recommendations, together with responses in bold italics, are as follows:

Event Management

21. Overall management of event set-up, operation and de-rig to be reviewed with reference to protection of the Park fabric and heritage assets and with reference to issues of public access, park closure and the availability of facilities. [Agreed] Loss of normal use of and access to the Park and its facilities, in varying degrees, over a three-week period is, in our view, unacceptable. Serious consideration may have to be given to whether the overall period of disruption could be reduced by an extended park closure either side of the race weekend, if the event is to continue to be held in Battersea Park. [While this comment is arguably outside the remit of a Heritage Impact Assessment, it reflects the consultant’s view regarding restricted access and disruption to a heritage-listed park and as such would need to be addressed in terms of any mitigating measures that it might be possible to implement to reduce the disruption. It is important to note that the consultant’s comment is made in conjunction with his suggestion that serious consideration should be given to extended park closure. This would need to be addressed by closure of segments of the park, on a ‘rolling’ basis, while keeping the park open and still restricting work to the periods set out in the

Page 8 of 50



Venue Use Agreement. This would need to be the subject of further and detailed discussion with Formula E.]

22. Site Manager to be appointed as part of design and planning of any future Formula

E event to provide a clear point of contact for Park management and with appropriate levels of authority across operations carried out by all contractors/concessions. [Agreed – would be required of Formula E]

23. Lines of communication and authority across all parties, including event organisers, all contractors and concessions with reference to any future Formula E events to be agreed and set out during the design and planning stage and works programme, to be made known to all parties prior to set-up. [Agreed, Formula E would review their event management plan to address this and the Council would seek to involve and inform concessions at an earlier stage]

24. All design and planning decisions for any future Formula E events to be finalised following appropriate consultation with Park Management team before the commencement of any set-up works. No variation to be undertaken at any stage without agreement of the Park Manager. [Agreed

– would be required of Formula

E]

25. Review role and membership of Community Forum prior to any future event with a view to discussing anticipated impacts and managing expectations. [Agreed]

26. Numbers attending any future Formula E events to remain controlled and to be agreed with Park Management team as part of the design and planning process and prior to start of ticket sales. [Agreed]

27. Signage for public access into and around the Park and availability of facilities during event construction and de-rig to be improved. [Agreed – would be required of Formula E and the Council would assist with this]

28. Our principal conclusion is that we consider it is unacceptable to restrict use of and access to the Park over a three-week period in the way observed. The actual impact of the works was considerably greater than that anticipated in the December HIA, which anticipated a considerably shorter period of significant disruption concentrated over a 3 day period. In our view this level of impact extended over almost the entire three week period. It is recommended that the whole event management process is reviewed with serious consideration given to whether the period of disruption could be reduced by an extended park closure either side of the race weekend. [As above – see paragraph 21, it would be the aim to reduce disruption by closing segments of the park, but not by extending park closure either side of the race weekend.]

Heritage Asset Protection

29. Provisions of the Arboricultural Method Statement and full compliance with BS 5837

Trees in Relation to Design, Demolition and Construction (2012) to be fully observed for all future events. Locations for temporary protective fencing to be agreed and

Page 9 of 50


Formula E review installed prior to event set up, in particular within the E village. [Agreed – would be required of Formula E]

30. Method Statements and other information as set out in the HIA to be produced as part of the design and planning process for the next event and adhered to throughout. All relevant parties to be informed of Method Statement requirements and duty to comply. [Agreed – the Council would seek to add these requirements to the Venue Use Agreement]

31. Consultation with Park facilities (bike hire, zoo) to be incorporated into event planning and design to ensure that operators are aware of the potential impacts of construction and de-rig as well as the event itself. [Agreed]

32. Dry weather was critical in minimising damage to grassed areas, in particular within the E village. Appropriate protective measures in accordance with Arboricultural

Method Statement and to provide protection of grassed areas to be agreed and mapped. [Agreed – though it was the case that FE did have a stock of grass protection material on site; park management advised it should only be used if absolutely necessary]

33. If spectator numbers increase review protection of hard and soft heritage assets.

[Agreed, though numbers are expected to remain the same according to FE’s current planning and spectator numbers are capped at a maximum of 30,000 on each day]

Event remedial works and tidy up (annual)

34. Immediate repair of carriage drive surfaces damaged by any aspect of the race setup, operation or de-rig (after each annual event), and restoration of heritage surfacing over the area of emergency resurfacing during this year’s event.

[Agreed

– largely completed; it is accepted that not all remedial measures can be

‘immediate’, but should be carried out in a reasonable period of time]

35. Vehicle/load heights to be reviewed as part of the design and planning process for the next event to prevent any damage to trees. [Agreed

– would be required of

Formula E]

36. Arrangements and mitigation for all aspects of event management in case of wet weather during any stage of construction, event and de-rig to be set out and agreed during the design and planning stages for the next Formula E event. [Agreed]

37. Review methodology for application and removal of paint markings to carriage drive surface to avoid future damage. [Agreed

– would be required of Formula E]

38. Lamp columns - retain barriers in front of lamp columns and temporary fencing around Carriage Drives until all heavy vehicle movements and removal of other plant and barriers is complete. [Agreed

– would be required of Formula E]

Page 10 of 50



Reinstatement works post-five years

39. The principal long term impact we currently foresee is associated with both the extent of additional tarmacking (in particular on the West Carriage Drive) and the consequences of repeated repairs and patching up of tarmac. With regard to repairs, even matching the existing finishes will tend to result in a patchwork appearance, more akin to a public road. If the event is to continue in the Park, it is our view that serious consideration should be given to building up a fund over the five year period of the event, in order to ensure appropriate reinstatement of the

Park’s infrastructure, with particular attention to the Carriage Drive widths, alignment and surfacing and attention to reinstatement of heritage assets, on conclusion of the five-year period.

[The visual impact of ‘patching’ has been reduced as far as possible by full-width patching. This has largely been necessary at all points where barrier infrastructure has been replaced by demountable equipment.

Large scale full-width patching has already been effected at these points and should not be necessary again during the contract period. This does have a visual impact, at least in the short term, until new surfaces “tone down” with age. Only at one point has there not been a full-width patch, this being the

Albert Gate turn, where Formula E has already been informed that the kerbline must be re-instated to its original line at the end of the agreement – this will effectively remove the patch. It is to be noted that the red tarmac of North

Carriage Drive is now of an age where ordinary weathering and wear is occasioning the need for patches and repairs, regardless of Formula E activity and this will also affect the visual appearance of the drive as time passes. A list of priority works to the Park would be agreed, subject to the amount of event income specifically directed to the park.]

40. Tree condition should continue to be monitored over the five year period and any evidence of die back or decline in condition investigated further. [Agreed]

41. Members are asked to note that the updated HIA has been sent to the HLF and any further comment from the HLF will be reported to the Committee.

PHYSICAL IMPACT ON THE PARK

42. While it was the view of the HLF that there was no permanent damage to the P ark’s historic infrastructure, Appendix 1 gives a list of damage that was caused. Officers consider this to be minor damage that has been repaired reasonably quickly and which has not materially affected the public’s use and enjoyment of the Park.

Overall, there was relatively limited damage caused by such a large event and credit must be given to the organisers for this. Despite several members of the public and

Park users being particularly concerned about tree damage, and numerous photographs and complaints being received on the matter, none of the fourteen instances of tree damage are expected to have a significant or long-term effect upon the relevant tree, either in terms of health, appearance or longevity. Remedial works to trees have all been paid for by Formula E.

Page 11 of 50



REMEDIAL WORKS

43. The staging of the event necessitated a number of physical changes to the P ark’s infrastructure, some of which were agreed to stay in place until the end of the legal agreement to host the event. However, some changes needed to be reverted immediately after the event. These included replacement of the traffic control barriers at vehicle access points, replacement of speed humps in Rosery car park, and replacement of fencing at the Millennium Arena car park. These works were programmed after the event and took place through July and August. Repair of damaged fencing caused by event vehicle movement has been commissioned, but lead-in times for manufacture of the fencing mean that implementation will not take place until week commencing 2 nd November 2015. Other remedial works such as removal of paint markings and resurfacing of damaged or patched tarmac were carried out in late August. The issue of tyre marks is still to be resolved and a different specialist machine is to be tried.

CONSULTATION FORUM

44. The creation of the Community Forum was at the suggestion of one of the local groups who made representations to the special meeting of the Community

Services Overview and Scrutiny Committee that considered Paper No. 14-651 on

3rd December 2014. It was made up of three senior Council officers and chaired by the then Assistant Director of Housing and Community Services (Leisure and

Culture); Formula E technical and management staff; two representatives from the

Friends of Battersea Park; and one representative from each of the following:

Battersea Crime Prevention Panel; Doddington West Resident s’ Association; the

Battersea Society; and Prince of Wales Drive mansion blocks.

45. The Forum meetings began in February 2015 and were held monthly in Battersea

Park, with the last meeting of 2015 held on 2nd September. Forum members reported that they found these meetings to be useful and a good way for them to be able to put questions directly to the Council and the event organisers.

46. The Forum meeting held in August (post-event) involved an initial feedback presentation by David Withycombe, the Heritage Impact Assessment consultant appointed by the Council at the request of the HLF. Mr Withycombe gave his views on the state of the Park during the build, event and de-rig stages, with a list of recommendations for Formula E to address. As stated above, in summary, the report concludes that no permanent damage was done to the Park and its heritage features.

47. The F orum’s community members each gave feedback to Council officers at the post-event meeting, and despite their positive attitude and contributions to the forum, all were in agreement that the Park is not an appropriate venue for a racing event, and described it as “an event too far”.

48. The Forum also noted delivery problems in respect of the notice of the application for planning permission, especially so with regard to the mansion blocks.

Page 12 of 50



49. Notes of all Forum meet ings were shared with the group’s members, as well as online, in order to ensure transparency with the general public.

SUMMARY OF THE VIEWS OF THE PUBLIC AND THE CONSULTATION

PROCESS

50. A list of the public’s complaints directly received by officers and Members, together with officers’ comments, is attached at Appendix 2. These are grouped under generic headings since many complaints were variations of the same issue. It is estimated that some 400 verbal and written complaints were directly received by officers. There have also been a number of misconceptions in the social media about the first and future events which are also addressed in Appendix 2.

51. In addition to directly-submitted complaints, a Facebook page was run by a resident of Prince of Wales Drive under the heading “Battersea Park Formula E Action

Group” and currently has 550 “likes”. An online petition on the subject, on a web site entitled ‘Save Battersea Park’ set up by the same resident, currently has 2,576 signatories, albeit not all are from the Borough and some signatories are from outside the UK.

52. The results from the Council’s online consultation process, which commenced on

17th July and finished on 6th September 2015, are shown at Appendix 4. While a clear majority (62% disagreed or strongly disagreed with the event) of respondents do not want to see FE as an annual event in the Park and there is a large group that is strongly opposed, the margin is rather tighter than might have been expected from social media comments in that 35% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed with continuing the event. In respect of those who attended the event, the Park was generally seen as a good venue with 66% rating it excellent or very good. However, access within the Park was clearly an issue for a sizeable minority and is reflected in comments later in the survey. The geographical spread of respondents within the

Borough is shown at Appendix 5.

53. Although the event attracted complaints, the event was nevertheless attended and enjoyed by an audience of more than 55,000 over the two days. Battersea Park, and the Borough, were showcased globally to an extent rarely possible, including by international press and TV coverage. Numerous positive comments were posted on social media and a small number of complimentary comments were directly received, Appendix 3 gives three examples (names and addresses withheld).

54. Positive publicity was also received on the day preceding the race weekend when automotive industry leaders gathered in London to discuss how novel technologies can move from race track to road. The event ‘Formula E: Race to Road’ on 28th

June was organised by UK Trade and Investment (UKTI). It highlighted the government’s commitment to working with the UK’s motorsport industry to further develop technology in the automotive sector. As well as hearing from leading industry figures, motorsports suppliers met with the wider automotive community.

Suppliers discussed how Formula E technology can assist in the development of road-going electric cars and it was noted that the UK is:

 a world leader in the development of low carbon technologies

Page 13 of 50





 home to more F1 teams than any other country a major player in the development of the pioneering technologies that make the



Formula E race series possible

Europe’s biggest market for low carbon cars. It accounted for 20% of all Electric

Vehicle (EV) and plug-in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV) sales in 2014.

55. Speaking at the event, Lord Maude, Minister of State for Trade and Investment, said:

“Formula E has vital implications far beyond the motorsport industry. It is a locus of

R&D around electric cars; offers an important opportunity to promote and generate interest around these cars; and promotes clean energy and sustainability. Already we are seeing Formula E teams working on ‘race to road’ programmes here in the

UK.”

56. Existing applications highlighted at the event included 500 London buses which are being fitted with an energy recovery system conceived by Williams Formula One and manufactured by UK engineering company, GKN. This enables buses to improve their fuel economy and CO2 emissions by over 20%, and reduces their impact on air quality in central areas by an even greater amount. The system will soon go into full-scale production.

POTENTIAL FOR APPRENTICESHIPS/WORK EXPERIENCE

57.

Preliminary discussions have been held between Council officers and Formula E’s

Director of Human Resources and indicate that Formula E would be willing to offer four or five three-month placements for Wandsworth care leavers/sixth formers

/school leavers. The placement s (with pay of £500 per month) would cover roles such as communications; marketing, finance, operations and administration.

IMPACT ON LOCAL BUSINESSES

58. Anecdotal evidence suggests that some local businesses outside the Park, such as public houses, reported increased trade due to the audience visiting the Borough.

An email survey of SW11 and SW8 businesses elicited no adverse comments to the event having taken place. A complaint made by a few members of the public was that local businesses were not given the opportunity to participate in, for example, the event’s food and drink provision. This would be discussed with Formula E as to whether there might be such opportunity at any future events.

EQUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT

59. The Equality Act 2010 requires that the Council when exercising its functions must have ‘due regard’ to the need to eliminate discrimination, to advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it and to foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it. As such a draft Equality Impact Assessment (EIA) has been undertaken on the proposals in this paper. An initial EIA is attached at Appendix 6. The EIA identifies that continuation of Formula E may have a negative impact on children and young

Page 14 of 50


Formula E review people due to playground facilities being closed for the period of the event and also potentially has a negative impact on local residents, of which a higher percentage in the ward are BME compared to the borough average, due to noise levels during the build phase and the race itself. The EIA highlights the potential apprenticeships and that some of the funding would be used to maintain and improve the infrastructure of the Park which will benefit all Park users, including those with a protected characteristic.

FINANCES

60. The detail of the financial arrangements has been withheld, as commercially sensitive, when requested by the public. This stance has been the subject of complaints, but it remains the case that detail of the financial benefit of the event to the Council is commercially-sensitive information which, if disclosed, would be prejudicial to the commercial interests of both the Council and Formula E. If the

Council decides to continue with the event, it is likely that there will be competition to provide a site for Formula E after five years, and at that point (subject to experience of the first five years) the Council may want to bid against other interested parties to continue to host the event, and so the sum agreed would be of interest to commercial competitors. Equally, Formula E would not want their other venue hosts, world-wide, to know details of the financial deal with the Council. For this and other reasons, Formula E insisted that all the financial and other commercially-sensitive information relating to the event be kept confidential by both parties. Whilst it is acknowledged that there may be public interest in this information, it remains the view of officers that there is a greater public interest in maximising the Council’s ability (subject to the review) to compete for the right to host the event beyond the current contract, and for the on-going economic benefits for Wandsworth associated with this. The Council’s specialist legal advisers, Harbottle and Lewis, have confirmed that this information should be kept confidential, as required by the Venue

Use Agreement, and could only be released by joint agreement between the Council and Formula E. The latter have indicated that they do not wish to release the details of the financial arrangements

– for the reasons stated above.

SUBMISSION FROM JANE ELLISON MP

61. Jane Ellison MP submitted concerns on behalf of 70 constituents. The seven grouped concerns were: perceived damage to the Park/carbon dioxide emissions/’not a green event’; inadequate communication by the Council; holding the event in mid-summer/impact on school sports/Park concessions/zoo; noise and disruption caused by vehicles and helicopters; clarity on revenue raised by the event; litter. All these issues have been covered elsewhere in this report or in the appendix of public concerns.

62. The Member of Parliament stated that she recognised the strength of feeling put to her, but also noted that the event was attended and enjoyed by around 60,000 people

– many of them local. She also noted: that 11.3% of spectators were

Wandsworth residents on the Saturday of the event, and 14.5% on the Sunday; that

2,000 free tickets were given out to local civic organisations (1,000 for each day); and that schools, including the Bolingbroke Academy, were given the opportunity to take part in a ‘schools’ ePrix’.

Page 15 of 50



63. While acknowledging that some local residents faced disruption and inconvenience over an extended period and therefore strongly opposed further Formula E events of this kind, the Member of Parliament accepted that the decision on whether to hold further events is one for the Council to make. She recognised that the Council is looking at innovative ways to continue to fund local services, whilst keeping Council

Tax low – an approach that has the support of many local people, especially those on lower pay. She accepted that these are difficult balances to strike, and it is clear that for some people Formula E stretched the bounds of what was appropriate for a public park of this distinction. She felt, however, that should the Council decide to allow further Formula E events, she would expect measures to better mitigate disruption and inconvenience as far as possible and suggested the following (the

Council’s response is shown in bold italics):

. i) The Council should consult an independent heritage expert to establish whether the fabric of the Park has been irreparably damaged and what steps can be taken to reduce the impact of any future events on the Park. Council response: a Heritage Impact Assessment was conducted, a post-review study undertaken by the same consultant and its findings, together with

Council responses, are contained in this report at paragraphs 20 - 40.

ii) a) Improve communication between the Council and residents that live near the Park and expand the area in which information leaflets are delivered.

Some of the mansion blocks I know can be difficult to hand-deliver leaflets to

(if this was the Council’s original approach with Formula E information) – if this is the case, and posting leaflets is too expensive, greater effort should be made to liaise with the porters of said block to ensure such information reaches residents. Council response: this problem is acknowledged and addressed in the lis t of the public’s concerns at Appendix 2.

b) However, I recognise there is a finite limit to the usefulness of letters and leaflets. I feel that a more interactive digital solution is needed, with a sophisticated online simulation of the construction and deconstruction phases, a Frequently Asked Questions section, timelines, illustrations, and a means of submitting feedback to the stakeholder group. I think for many people, myself included, it was hard to visualise what would be involved in the holding of the Formula E event, and if the Council decides to proceed with others, an accessible digital presentation, regularly updated and dynamic, would really help. Council response: this can be considered for any future event. iii) a) The Council and the event organiser could look at the feasibility of changing the timing of any future event away from mid-summer , when the Park is most heavily used to minimise disruption to existing Park users. Council

Page 16 of 50


Formula E review response: this suggestion is addressed in the list of the public’s concerns at Appendix 2. A northern hemisphere finale to the Formula E global programme requires a summer event.

b) This could include increasing the speed at which the construction and deconstruction is undertaken to reduce the number of weekends affected .

It is obvious from conversations with Council officers that good lessons have been learned about the lengths of time needed for the construction and deconstruction phases, and they understand the need to minimise disruption.

More work could be undertaken to reduce the impact on weekends either side of the main event, for example the Council could look at the feasibility of installing and removing the large concrete safety barriers at off-peak times, if this can be done without detracting from the enjoyment of the Park or disrupting those that live nearby. Council response: initial deliveries would be avoided during the first weekend.

iv) a) The Council works with event organisers to reduce noise and disruption caused by the construction and deconstruction periods, and during the weekend of the event itself, as much as possible. Council response: this would be an aim for any future event.

b) The Council should seek specific assurances that television helicopter noise during any future event is kept to a minimum

– perhaps by reducing the time windows during which helicopters can be operated, and/or increasing the height at which a helicopter is required to fly. Some correspondents who were not opposed, in principle, to the event were understandably fed up with the persistent helicopter noise over the weekend of the event. Council response: this problem is acknowledged and addressed in the list of the public’s concerns at Appendix 2 and alternative methods, or reduced use, would be considered.

v) Minimise the opportunity for Park users to be in close vicinity with moving construction vehicles to reduce risk (see 3a with regard to moving work to offpeak periods). Council response: Council staff would consider increased segregation of P ark users from moving construction vehicles by a ‘rolling’ vi) programme of closure, this issue is addressed in paragraph 21 and in

Appendix 2.

a) Aim for maximum transparency on revenue generated by the event, and ensure opportunities for local people to feed in ideas on how it is invested.

Page 17 of 50



Council response: this issue is addressed in paragraph 62.

b) A specific review should be undertaken of the benefit to the local economy of the additional footfall to Battersea, with a view to maximising it, should the event be repeated. Council response: this suggestion is acknowledged and addressed in the list of the public’s concerns at Appendix 2 and within the body of this report at paragraph 58.

vii) Provide more temporary litter bins at the event so that attendees can more easily dispose of litter, and deploy more Council staff after the event to thoroughly clean the Park. I am sure the Council could look to recover some of this additional cost from the event-specific caterers and vendors. Council response: litter collection on site was well controlled and was not considered problematic. Some litter bins outside the Park overflowed and this would be addressed by additional provision for any future event.

64. The Member of Parliament concluded that had this not been an event showcasing new electric car technology and instead had been a race featuring conventionallypowered vehicles, she did not feel that the Park could have been considered an appropriate venue. She further commented that the life of our great parks has always reflected changes in society and the nature of our parks has evolved over time. Reflecting on this, she stated it was good to see that from reports in the media, many families came to enjoy the Park, drawn by the novelty, convenience, and relative financial accessibility of Formula E.

COMMENTS OF THE DIRECTOR OF FINANCE

65. The Director of Finance comments that the main financial consequences of the hosting of Formula E to the Council are contained within the associated confidential paper 15-445A. The hosting of Formula E delivers a net financial benefit to the

Council and a commitment has been made to invest £1m over the potential five years of the agreement for the purposes of delivering improvements within the park itself.

COMMENTS OF THE BOROUGH SOLICITOR

66. As reported in Paper No 14-651( paragraph 25), Section 145 Local Government Act

1972 authorises the closure of the Park and provides the necessary legal power to make the arrangements with FE. There is no maximum period of closure under section 145 but, importantly, as with the exercise of any statutory power, this must be undertaken reasonably in the public law sense. Accordingly, in reaching a decision on whether the Formula E event should continue for the 2016 and 2017 seasons ( subject to all necessary permissions and approvals), it is important that

Members give full and proper consideration to all the information and advice from officers contained in this report.

Page 18 of 50



SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

67. The details of the limited damage to the Park are set out at Appendix 1; the public’s directly-submitted comments and complaints , together with the Council’s responses, are set out at Appendix 2; some positive views are given at Appendix 3; the results of the public consultation survey are set out at Appendix 4 with a map at Appendix

5; and an initial Equality Impact Assessment is shown at Appendix 6.

68. It should be stressed that, overall, officers consider that the Formula E staff were committed professionals who achieved a safe and successful inaugural event within a remarkably short (in comparison to other similar motor racing events) period of time. Concerns raised in this report need to be seen in the light of a steep first-year learning curve and should be able to be addressed as a result of experience gained.

Should the event continue, improvements can be made to the processes for build and de-rigging which should further enhance safety and reduce impact on use of the

Park and the Council would want to see further segregation of vehicle movements/build operations from continuing public use of the park.

69. Although the event was judged safe and successful, there was sustained and vociferous opposition, particularly from residents local to the Park and from regular users of the Park. The event met with opposition from circa 400 local residents/users of the Park who made direct contact with the Council, from 550 contributors to a Facebook page set up by a Battersea resident, and from 2,576 signatories who have signed the online petition on the web site

(www.savebatterseapark.com), set up by a Battersea resident. Results (1,366 responses) from the Council’s public consultation exercise suggest that a clear majority of respondents do not want to see Formula E as an annual event in the

Park. The main thrust of opposition to the event can be summarised as a belief that the impact of three weeks’ disruption to the Park does not outweigh the income received and that a heritage-listed park in an inner-city environment should be an

‘oasis of calm’ and not used as a motor racing circuit. While some of the disruption can be addressed by re-programming of the works, this will not reduce the visual and physical impact of the circuit

’s barriers and fencing.

70. Despite this opposition, there was positive national and international press coverage of the event and the Committee have to consider the future of the event in Battersea

Park in the light of both the opposition to the event and the overall benefits to the

Council including, in particular, the financial benefits and the promotion of the

Borough as being supportive of new technology which, longer-term, will influence the development of road-going electric cars and inner-city air quality.

71. The Committee are therefore asked to decide upon a recommendation to the

Executive as to whether the event, subject to planning permission and all other permissions and approvals, should continue for the 2016 and 2017 seasons until the next break clause in the Venue Use Agreement in autumn of 2017.

The Town Hall,

Wandsworth,

SW18 2PU.

BRIAN REILLY

Director of Housing and Community Services

Page 19 of 50



16th November 2015

Background Papers

There are no background papers to this report.

All reports to Overview and Scrutiny Committees, regulatory and other committees, the

Executive and the full Council can be viewed on the Council’s website

( www.wandsworth.gov.uk/moderngov ) unless the report was published before May 2001, in which case the committee secretary (Martin Newton, 020 8871 6488; email mnewton@wandsworth.gov.uk

) can supply if required.


Page 20 of 50


APPENDIX 1

TREE DAMAGE:

(Note: NCD = North Carriage Drive; SCD = South Carriage Drive etc)

(i) Carpinus. SCD lawns adj Beechmore toilets. Broken branch.

(ii) Acer Saccharinum. SCD lawns opp all-weather pitch. Broken branch.

(iii) Fraxinus Raywood. SCD lawns adj Rosery car park entrance. Broken branch.

(iv) Fraxinus excelsior. adj Ethelburga Path. Broken branch.

(v) Platanus. at Bandstand. Broken branches.

(vi) Osmanthus (shrub). SCD shrubberies – broken stem – cut back to stump.

(vii) Platanus. adj Ethelburga pedestrian gate - damaged bark on root (additional over pre-existing damage).

(viii) Prunus. Cherry lined path o/s All Weather Pitch - broken branch.

(ix) Cedrus. SCD to west of Rosery rose garden. Broken branch.

(x) Prunus. ECD shrubbery on cnr with Central Ave. Small broken branches.

(xi) Malus. ECD (in Thrive Gdn). Small broken branches.

(xii) Platanus - NCD 1 Bark damage/gouging on low branch.

(xiii) Platanus - NCD 2 Bark damage/gouging on low branch. Large branch. probably requires removal in due course.

(xiv) Platanus - NCD 3 Bark damage/gouging on low branch.

All damage listed above has been pruned and tidied as necessary, other than that at item

(xiii) which is to be monitored prior to a final decision on work required. The majority of the work was undertaken by a Formula E-engaged and Council-approved arboricultural contractor. Othe r works undertaken were undertaken by the Council’s term contractor, at

Formula E’s expense. With the exception of item (xiii), none of the tree damage can be regarded as significant and none of the damage, item (xiii) included, is expected to have a significant or long-term effect upon the relevant tree, either in terms of health, appearance or longevity.

In addition, there has been sustained comment from a number of members of the public about claimed damage to Quercus cerris (Turkey Oak) adjacent to the former Boules Area in the Park. A document some seven pages long has been sent to the Council by a resident of SW11 and makes the claim that surfacing works undertaken for Formula E in the spring of 2015 have been detrimental to the health of trees growing adjacent that area.

In the view of professional arboricultural staff advising the Council, the document contains many misconceptions, misinterpretation of data, and selective interpretation of information.

The document’s conclusion consists of eight itemised points and these are addressed below. i) Prior to 01.08.2015 Wandsworth Parks Department and Mr. Jerry Birtles were not aware of any of the 7 oak trees I refer to in this report exhibiting any form of stress, dieback or significant ill health. This is despite the fact that they were officially surveyed in February 2015 and, presumably, monitored on a regular basis both before and after this date. It must be assumed that the oak trees were all in good health prior to Formula E construction in March.

Page 21 of 50



Response: The Arboricultural Survey in relation to the Formula E event was undertaken in February 2015. It should be noted that in February the trees were bare of leaves. Therefore, the absence of foliage from dead or stressed shoots high in the canopy would not be immediately obvious. The absence of buds, or the presence of dead buds, high in the canopy would not be discernable without particularly close scrutiny using binoculars. The survey was not intended to be conducted at that level of scrutiny. However, the report highlights that the Turkey

Oak adjacent to and near the Boules area, were generally referred to as of average physiological condition, and Indifferent structural condition. Two were specifically recorded as being below average physiological condition, and one specifically recorded as being of poor structural condition. Three were recorded as having above average deadwood in the canopy. ii) Several oaks are currently exhibiting signs of stress. In particular the southern-most three oaks. One oak is exhibiting dieback. The canopy of the oak with dieback has degraded noticeably in the last few months. Mr. Birtles describes this as “a little less foliated.” I describe it as “significant and noticeable degradation of the canopy.”

Response: There are ten Turkey Oak in a row adjacent West Carriage Drive - three to the north of Central Avenue, and seven to the south adjacent the former Boules

Area. Three trees were observed to be less densely foliated in the upper canopy than might be expected, indicating possible signs of stress. One additional tree (T2) was observed to be showing significantly more dieback and defoliation than the remaining trees and is showing clear signs of stress. At the time this tree was drawn to the Chief Parks Officer’s attention (ie in August 2015) it was in poor condition. It has not “ …degraded noticeably …” in the intervening period. It is still in poor condition. It should be noted that the use of the Chief Parks Officer’s comment about the tree being “a little less foliated” is out of context. The comment refers to the tree being a little less foliated than it was at the time of previous correspondence approximately three weeks earlier. The comment was not intended to represent the overall condition of the tree. iii) No arboriculturist can retrospectively conclude when trees first started exhibiting signs of stress or dieback. There is a possibility that these pre-date the construction work in March. There is a possibility that these post-date the construction work in

March. Any statements regarding this are based on personal opinion. All we can categorically state is that all available evidence suggests the oak trees were in good health prior to the Formula E construction in March 2015.

Response: A competent arboriculturalist can readily interpret symptoms and biological indications to make a reasonable estimate of how long underlying causal factors have been affecting a tree. In the case of the worst affected tree (T2) adjacent the former Boules Area, branch samples from the upper and middle canopy indicate that dieback and deadwood had been present more than one growing season; fungal fruit bodies near the base of the stem, both new and old, indicate that basal and root decay have been present several years, and necrotic cambial tissue at the base of the tree indicates that vascular problems have been extant more than one year. These all indicate that the underlying causal factors have been present for some considerable time, and that stress, decline and dieback

Page 22 of 50


Formula E review were also present prior to the surfacing work undertaken. iv) The Heritage Impact Assessment specifically highlights root damage through compaction as potentially having a major adverse impact on the health of the trees in this area and suggests the AMS [Arboricultural Method Statement] as a mitigation strategy.

Response: It is correct that root damage and compaction can have major adverse effect on the health of trees. v) Four significant aspects of the AMS were not adhered to. It is near certain that three of these (pneumatic compaction, heavy machinery use, incomplete Cellweb coverage) will have increased the amount of compaction the tree roots were exposed to. How much exactly, we cannot ascertain.

Response: The Arboricultural Method Statement is a document prepared by arboriculturalists to ensure adequate safeguard to trees during construction and development processes. Whilst the document contains stringent requirements and guidance, it is not a document that can or should be regarded as absolute.

However, deviation from any principles within such a document would only be appropriate or acceptable if undertaken under guidance and agreement from a suitably qualified or experienced arboriculturalist. Variations to the principles of the prepared AMS were only undertaken with the direct agreement of such an arboriculturalist.

vi) Enough conditions of the AMS were ignored to suggest Spadeoak failed to comply with the conditions and limitations subject to which planning permission in this area was granted.

Response: The contractor undertaking the works did not ignore conditions of the prepared AMS. Variations from the provisions within that document were agreed in all cases by a suitably qualified and experienced arboriculturalist. vii) There is enough factual evidence to suggest construction in the area of the former boules pitch has potentially put the long term health of the oak trees in the area at risk by damaging the roots through compaction. It is significant that the three most stressed oaks (including the one exhibiting dieback) are all in a row. This suggests there is one specific area of the site where some form of significant root damage has occurred.

Response: No factual evidence has been presented to demonstrate that the surfacing work has affected any of the trees adjacent the former Boules Area, nor to demonstrate that the already compacted ground around these trees was further compacted by the work undertaken. Neither has there been any professional opinion from a suitably-qualified person submitted for consideration. viii) As mentioned in point i), there is no evidence of any stress or dieback before construction in March. However, if the stress and dieback did indeed precede construction in March, then by allowing extremely sensitive construction to be carried out in this area Wandsworth Council and Wandsworth Parks Department

Page 23 of 50


Formula E review have failed in their duty of care to protect these ecologically significant trees, which are also valuable from a heritage perspective.

Response: The most severely affected tree (T2) itself presents adequate evidence that stress and dieback have been present for some considerable time. These include shoot and branch samples from the upper and middle canopy, fungal fruit bodies at the base of the stem, and necrotic cambial tissue at the base of the stem.

Due to the presence of fruit bodies of wood decay fungi on the stem, PICUS tomographic testing was commissioned from an independent arboricultural consultant to determine the internal condition of the tree and thereby make a judgement on the structural integrity of the tree stem. The PICUS tests indicated that this tree has substantial decay internally at the base of the stem - a condition that can only develop over a significant period of time. The condition is also a significant indicator of buttress or structural root damage which must also have developed over time. The consultant also provided written comment that the tree exhibits sufficient symptoms to indicate that in his opinion the tree has been in decline for some years. All ten Turkey oak trees were tested and only the most seriously affected tree was found to be subject to decay of the stem and base. The remaining nine trees, which show either no, or mild, symptoms of stress, had no indication of long –term stem damage.

That this one tree (T2) shows substantial symptoms of decline is without question.

However, reactive epicormic regrowth has developed in the middle and upper canopy during the course of the past summer, indicating the tree may be showing some signs of recovery. This can only be verified by observing the nature and extent of new growth in spring. However, such indications of possible recovery would be unlikely to be present if the causes of decline had only occurred in recent months.

The recommendation made by the independent consultant for the one tree was

“Remedial treatment to the crown by selective retrenchment . Continue to monitor.”

In lay terms, this is to remove the dead branches and to reduce the canopy to suitable growing points in order to allow the development of a new upper canopy. This concurs with the opinion of the Chief Parks Officer that no other action is immediately necessary and that selective pruning can be made after establishing where suitable new growth occurs in spring.

OTHER MINOR DAMAGE IN THE PARK:

LOCATION ISSUE REASON

North carriage drive - opposite

Pier Point toilets

Maple Walk - rear of pavilion

Double litter bin uplifted Seating stand company

North carriage drive lamp column 158

North carriage drive - from

Chelsea gate to Car park

North carriage drive - from

Hoop top fence flatten by vehicle

Hit by vehicle (unknown what vehicle)

Security vehicle working in cricket pavilion column bent & light housing bent by vehicle

1 cast iron bollard broken off at ground level hit by lorry

1 cast iron bollard loose in hit by lorry

Page 24 of 50



Chelsea gate to Car park ground

Millennium Track car park Grass damage to newly renovated area

Caused by FE construction contractor - whilst installing concrete blocks & removing of

Vehicle movement River front stretch opposite pier point toilets

Albert bridge car park (West carriage drive part)

Albert car park field

Footpath from Subtropical back to South carriage drive

Fence line round shrub bed near

Barbra Hepworth statue

Grass area fence line which runs opposite lake & South carriage drive

2 x lengths of wooden edging board snapped out of place

3 x lengths of wooden edging boards snapped out of place

Rutts in grass area

3 x hoop top fence panels damage

1 x hoop top fence panel damage

Roughly 60 x hoop top fence panels damaged

(upright rods on panels only)

Caused by FE construction contractor - whilst installing concrete blocks

Caused by fencing contractor

Cause by foot bridge contractor

Caused by FE construction contractor

Fork lift truck to with seating stands

Second grass area fence line which runs opposite lake &

South carriage drive

Rosary entrance - rose bed fence line

Roughly 30 x hoop top fence panels damaged

(upright rods on panels only)

1 x notice sign broken away from fixing point

Fork lift truck to with seating stands

Foot bridge contractor

Rosary entrance - cast iron bollard next to rose beds

1 x notice sign totally bent

Main entrance leading into BGS 1 x estate fence has been hit

Foot bridge contractor

Hit by vehicle

Maple Walk - off of North carriage drive, cast iron bollard

1 x notice sign totally bent Caused by FE construction contractor

Staff yard - new compound, boundary fence

1 x fence panel bent

Rosary car park - chestnut fence Missing section of chestnut fence

Caused by fork lift of FE construction contractor


Rosary car park - chestnut fence Number of sections of fence pushed over

Rosary car park - footpath from car park to south carriage drive


1 x cast iron bollard been hit Caused by FE construction contractor

Central carriage drive - grass area rear entrance of the BGS

Vehicle damage to grass areas

Caused by FE construction contractor - whilst re- tarmacking pathway

Page 25 of 50



APPENDIX 2

COMPLAINTS AND CONCERNS DIRECTLY RECEIVED FROM THE PUBLIC

Physical impact on the park

 Disruption to access caused by the build and de-rigging. This involved many HGV and other vehicle movements, a large workforce, two weeks’ disruption beforehand, a week afterwards, and cannot be described as minimal or minor.

Response: the construction activity in the park was extensive, but was largely limited to the periods quoted, as expected. See also response below regarding crossing points.

FE would work with the Council to define clear work and access areas and stewarding plans would pay particular attention to this issue.

 Crossing points as advertised on the Wandsworth Borough website not available for

 the majority of the set up. Movement around the park increasingly marginalised during the 2 week set up.

Response: the crossing points were there, but it is accepted that there were not enough for normal park usage and to encourage access to the still-open areas of the park. Large areas of the park were still available for use.

Closure of the park is not justified at the most popular time of year. Why can’t it be held earlier in the year ?

Response: limited areas of the park were kept open during the park’s closure days and the majority of the park was still open throughout the build and de-rigging periods. The choice of date is a matter for Formula E, subject to their global programme, but a finale in the northern hemisphere needs to involve a summer event.

 An inner-city Grade 2* heritage-listed park, such as Battersea Park, should not be used for a motor-racing event.

Response: while it is appreciated that this is the view of many park users, such use has

 to be weighed against the need to generate additional income to help maintain the park.

 Cyclists diverted to pedestrian walk ways.

Response: this is acknowledged and would be addressed should the event continue.

Within the Boules area … the shale surface has been replaced by tarmac to create what now gives the impression of being a dual carriageway.

Response: this surface would either be replaced after five years or retained and given a more natural look on its surface.

 30 m of mature laurel hedge has been removed as well as grass and trees…

Page 26 of 50





Response: it was not 30m, but approximately 10 metres. While it is subject to reinstatement after five years, this will be reviewed and consulted upon.

Set up effectively turned the park into a construction site with HGVs and heavy materials all over .

Response: this is difficult to avoid, given the nature of the construction work involved.

Provision of a longer build period and/or a rolling programme of closing off specific areas within the park to desegregate construction areas with no public access may be possible, subject to discussion with Formula E.

 There were scorched road surfaces, different colour patchwork road surfaces, track lines.

Response: see response in main body of report to HLF concern. There were no scorch marks, but tyre marks were left.



Rose gardens were fenced off; the wonderful views of ponds and trees were spoilt by huge wire fences…

Response: these elements were temporary.



Damage has been done to the fabric of the park in relation to the trees and grassy areas.







Response: see main report - better work practices would be introduced for any future event.

No proper co-ordination between the various sub-contractors working on the site.

Response: as with any new event, there was a steep learning curve and the need for dynamic risk management based upon the nature of the event, the operations required for event delivery and the environment in which the event took place. Communications between all parties involved in the delivery of the event need to be more cohesive , but daily meetings were held between main contractors to discuss issues around the site as they arose. An installation programme was put in place by FE but it is recognised there us a need for better control.

Delivery of materials should not have been allowed on the weekend (13th/14th July) immediately preceding the build period.

Response: such deliveries were permitted under the terms of the Venue Use

Agreement, but it is accepted that Monday-Friday deliveries would be preferable, when the park is not as busy.

Over the four days the park was almost entirely closed, during and directly after the event, it is safe to assume that more than 100,000 members of the public were denied access to and use of Battersea Park. The large majority of these people would

Page 27 of 50


Formula E review probably have been local Wandsworth residents. There was no public toilet in the small area of the park that was left open during and immediately after the event.

Response: the closure of the park has to be considered against the financial and other

 benefits for the Council. The siting of a portaloo in the area in question would be considered, but it is not considered a necessity.

Although there was a space kept free in the middle, you were not able to get to it or to see that it was available.

Response: such space was kept available, but it is accepted that access and signage

 to it could have been better.

Local people are not grateful to the council for organising the re-tarmacing of the roads, they are not there to be driven on!

Response : the carriage drives were not re-tarmacked as a result of Formula E, though there were areas such as Rosery car park and the Boules area that were resurfaced. In the specific case of Rosery car park, the condition of the previous rough (and pot holed surface) was the subject of public complaints. We have the option of returning these to their previous, rough, condition after 5 years (subject to a review).

 The following statement appears on the council website – ‘ the race organisers have an action plan in place for the speedy installation and removal of its infrastructure. This process should only take a few days and the park will remain open to the public throughout’. This is quite simply untrue - the event was over two days at the weekend and yet the park remained fully closed on the Monday and the Tuesday afterwards.

What is the response of the council to this misinformation?

Response: the Council was always clear that the park would generally be closed for four days – the two days of the event and two days thereafter. Due to public pressure, however, the Council agreed to keep open the riverside walk and an area on the eastern boundary, for general public access. After the event, these areas re-opened on

Monday afternoon and were open on Tuesday, prior to full park re-opening on the

Wednesday.

 Initially the centre of the park was still empty but soon this became filled with lorries, tents, cars and building materials. Unlike major events in Hyde Park or Clapham

 common where the event is restricted to one section of the park, within the first week of

Formula E construction it became almost impossible to be anywhere inside Battersea

Park without being able to see and feel the effects of Formula E.

Response: this was unavoidable given the scale and schedule of construction, but can be reviewed.

A lorry drove directly over the grass in the main, central grassy area of the park during the construction phase. This area is commonly used for picnics, sports, dog walking or general recreation. It is worth mentioning that the only reason this grassy area was not severely damaged during the event is because the weather was so good.

Page 28 of 50







Response: a wet-weather mitigation plan was in place, and a stock of grass protection material was on site, but was not needed.

Within one day of the construction phase it became impossible to move freely through the park. This severely affected many of the other park uses I have mentioned.

Running, commuting, taking children for a walk, walking dogs. All these activities were affected in a negative way.

Response: while areas of the park were kept open throughout the build period, it is acknowledged that the scale of construction work, coupled with not enough circuit crossing points, made movement difficult.

The Thames waterfront walk was lined by metal fencing within the first week of construction preventing easy, unrestricted access to the grassy areas behind where many people exercise or access the waterfront path from. These fences were soon covered in blue advertising banners.

Public interaction with contractors/stewards



Response: some of the grass areas along the Riverside Walk remained available and other areas of the park were still accessible.

Families were given mixed messages with regards to the availability of the athletic track during the ‘build period’. Some were advised it was closed others were told it was open.

Response: agreed

– ability of stewards to guide/advise was not to the standard we would have wished and has been raised with the organiser, Formula E. This can be addressed by better briefing/training.

 Some contractors and/or stewards were aggressive towards the public.

Response: the Council has taken this matter up with the organiser, it is accepted that some stewards did not have the necessary skills/information to deal adequately with the public. It was also reported that some members of the public aggressively challenged Formula E/contractor staff.

Local businesses

 Existing businesses in the park were closed for the weekend.

Response: some businesses were utilised by Formula E (e.g. the Lakeside Cafe), and

 any suffering financial loss are to be compensated by Formula E. Where practical,

Formula E would aim to include more of these businesses/concessions in any future events.

The programme should have advertised local business. They are aware that it was advertised as a London event but we are proud of Battersea and we have some excellent business which would gladly welcome this sort of publicity.

Page 29 of 50



Response: this point is noted and would be suggested to the organisers if the event continues. Programme content nevertheless would remain the responsibility of the event organiser.

 Disruption was caused to the Zoo and the removal of animals caused distress to the animals, affecting their breeding season and also affecting the profitability and viability of the Zoo.

Response: a nimal welfare was a paramount consideration; all the zoo’s recommendations were accepted and funded. The zoo, like other concessions, has

 been subject to an agreement that Formula E would fund any net loss of income.

Bike Hire was closed for 3 weeks.

Response: the closure was longer than anticipated, but the operator is negotiating increased compensation from Formula E.

Finances

 The Council should raise the amount of tax it charges, instead of relying on income from unsuitable events such as this. Wandsworth Council has turned our public green space into a private theme park to act as a cash cow.

Response: i t is the Council’s policy to maintain a distinctly low council tax and one of the methods of doing so is by raising income from events.

 We are not allowed to know how much the money the Council has received from

Formula E.

Response: details of the financial agreement between the Council and FE have been withheld as commercially sensitive. Disclosure of the full financial benefit to the Council is deemed prejudicial to the commercial interests of both the Council and Formula E. If the Council decides to continue with the event, it is likely that there will be competition to provide a site for Formula E after five years, and at that point (subject to experience of the first five years) the Council may want to bid against other interested parties to continue to host the event, and so the sum agreed would be of interest to commercial competitors. Equally, Formula E would not want their other venue hosts, world-wide, to know details of the financial deal with the Council. Whilst it is acknowledged that there may be public interest in this information, it therefore remains the view of officers that there is a greater public interest in maximising the Council’s ability (subject to the review) to compete for the right to host the event beyond the current contract, and for the on-going economic benefits for Wandsworth associated with this.

The Event

 The track was narrow in places, bumpy, and not fit for purpose . On day one the race started behind a safety car and was dubbed ‘a day of farce’ in the national press (Daily

Telegraph).

Page 30 of 50



Response: m otor racing’s governing body, the FIA, approved the circuit and there are no proposals to widen the track.

The press coverage altered after the first day’s event

(when remedial measures were made on the Saturday evening) and the general press response after the second day was positive.

 Attendance was not great.

Response: attendance was some 55,500 against a maximum permitted audience of

60,000.



On the day, we saw the electric racing cars one behind the other for a few seconds and had to watch the rest of the lap on the screen. There was no excitement or room for cars being able to overtake each other as in Formula 1 and there were some points on the track that the cars were bouncing up and down all over the place.

Response: the general feedback from the public who attended the event has been positive.



There is very little local interest in this event.

Response: on the basis of post code data provided by the ticketing company, it is estimated that 12.6% of the audience came from the Borough.

 It was very noticeable that during the Formula E event the council did not post a single photo of the race track or the event itself on their Twitter feed.



Response : coverage of the event was a matter for the media and Formula E .

Attendance was lower than expected with many visitors noting how sparse the crowd seemed.

Response: attendance was not lower than expected – 27,000 attended on day 1 and

28,500 on day 2. As Battersea Park is so large, these numbers were easily accommodated without any pressure.

Impact on health

 HGV emissions during the build period resulted in poor air quality for runners.

School sports and activities cancelled for 3 weeks.



Response: just two school sports days were unable to be relocated elsewhere, and one school booking of the athletics track. Every effort was made to re-programme or relocate schools. HGV emissions are unavoidable, but it may be possible to reduce the impact by re-programming of deliveries.

At a time when scientific studies confirm that people are not active enough to protect their health, we need to ensure that safe, accessible and enjoyable recreation spaces are more available to citizens, not less.

Page 31 of 50



Response: as above, the temporary unavailability of sports pitches in the park was considered acceptable in the light of the financial and other benefits to be gained from the events and the availability of similar facilities elsewhere in the Borough and locally, such as Clapham Common.

 In addition to environmental and heritage impact assessments, a comprehensive health impact assessment should be carried out as part of an independently-conducted review for Formula E, and also in consideration of future events

.

Response: the temporary impact on physical activity in the park was not considered to be substantial or warrant a health impact assessment.

 Evening cricket played regularly Monday - Thursday cancelled for 3 weeks.

Response: as above, sports and activities were largely able to be relocated elsewhere.

The temporary unavailability of sports pitches in the park was considered acceptable in the light of the financial benefits to be gained from the events and the availability of similar facilities elsewhere in the Borough.

 Battersea Park is located amongst some of the most deprived council estates in South

West London, some of these have issues of crime and disorder as well as many residents who are law abiding citizens. The access of local residents to green spaces should be an absolute priority for the council; in fact studies in some Scandinavian countries have highlighted that crime is reduced in areas where people have access to parks and spaces at their own leisure and it is also paramount for mental wellbeing in built up urban areas. Closing the park in the height of summer (which coincided with some of the hottest days this year) simply shows that acceptable consideration of local people as individuals did not take place. 'Formula E' will probably respond by saying that tickets were offered to local people - this was certainly not made known to local people in any obvious way.

Response: the impact upon the park, and its temporary closure, are not considered to have impacted on crime in the area. No crime was reported as a result of the event taking place. Given the limited numbers of free tickets available for distribution, wider advertising would have led to demand outstripping the supply.

Health and Safety

 Residents did not see any … council staff taking charge of health and safety matters during any part of the proceedings. No apparent health and safety presence.

Response: residents will not necessarily have been aware of the Safety Advisory

Group’s operations, or the engagement of a specialist health and safety consultant from Capita Symonds in the lead up to the event. For the event itself, the site is handed over to the event operator at a point when the Council deems it safe to do so.

Event safety then becomes the responsibility of the event operator. Irrespective of this, however, there were Council events staff, parks police, parks management staff, the specialist safety consultant, building control and environmental services (health and safety) staff on site during the build and de-rig and two event days, monitoring the event. Residents representatives on the Consultation Forum were fully aware of these

Page 32 of 50




Formula E review measures, they were fully spelled out in the November 2014 committee report and details were available on the Council’s specific web pages.

A Health and Safety risk assessment should have been made in the area where the heavy lorries, lifting equipment and fork lift trucks were operating. At times families with young children, dog walkers and cyclists were allowed to gain access to the road at the same time as the lorries, cranes and fork lift trucks were in operation. Residents consider that these areas should have been closed during vehicle operations.

Response: risk assessments were undertaken and such activities were marshalled.

Plans for better segregation will also be reviewed.

 One correspondent had a medical emergency during the Saturday race and contacted the medical services on site, who gave us a choice: call an ambulance, and therefore cancel or delay the race, or make the injured person walk across the entirety of the

Fan Village and then over a rather rickety set of stairs, another few hundred metres to exit the park, and then find a taxi. The medical services on site seemed only prepared to deal with scrapes and headaches. There was no child welfare officer, or any sort of child-friendly space, that was visible.

Response: On site medical staff treated a number of visitors during the course of the event in accordance with the medical plan detailed in the SAG meetings. A vehicle was available to transport casualties to access points. If a case were deemed serious, the race would be stopped in line with the event’s medical plan. The pedestrian bridges were signed off as fit for purpose by the

Council’s Building Control service.

Child welfare was managed in accordance with the Council’s guidelines and successfully dealt with all issues that arose.

 During the construction and de-rig, certain areas were occasionally cordoned off. But more often than not there was free interaction between lorries, forklift trucks, building materials and members of the public.

Response: as above – such activities were marshalled by the contractors and plans for better segregation would be reviewed if the event continues.

Lack of consultation

 There was inadequate residents’ notification and consultation.

Response: In addition to notices on park gates and the 6th November 2014 consultation event, the Council’s Planning Service delivered over 1,800 letters concerning the planning application to local addresses. While there seems to have been a problem with distribution, in particular the mansion blocks around the site, the

Council also maintained up-to-date information on its web site and operated a

Consultation Forum in the five months leading up to the event. The subsequent consultation exercise has attracted input from (to date) 1,242 respondents.

Page 33 of 50



Noise

 Work commenced at 7.00am and was allowed to continue on a daily basis through to 9.00pm. There was considerable noise from vehicles (especially reversing

‘beeping’) and from drilling. One vehicle woke residents up at 5.45am.



Response: this 5.45 a.m. vehicle movement should not have occurred.

HGVs moving in open public spaces during set up - some at quite a speed.

Response: All HGV movements were marshalled at low speeds.

 Helicopters hovering overhead for 2 days, even at 9am on Sunday when the race was not on until 4pm.

Response : This was to an extent not anticipated or planned and, while Sunday’s helicopter activity was shortened, the matter has been taken up with the event organisers and further reduced aerial activity, or alternative methods, would be explored if the event continues.





A resident of Prince of Wales Drive complained that she could hear the cars from within her apartment.

Response: Concerns regarding the noise emitted by the cars were very limited.

Noise levels were within the limits permitted for events.

There was noise from the speakers in the park including at 8.05 when there was no one in the stands.

Response: given that public access to the event was from 8am, some tannoy announcements from that time were to be anticipated. For any future event,

 however, the organisers plan to provide more individual ear-pieces to reduce the need for tannoy announcements nearest the residential areas.

Signage

Non-existent or poor directional signage indicating where you could and could not go during set up - many times I found myself blocked off having taken a given route.

Response : this is acknowledged and will be addressed should the event continue .

Use of ‘grid girls’

 One member of the public objected to the use of "grid girls" at the Formula E event, as having no race-related function and having the same function as "bikini girls" at boxing matches, squarely aimed at an adult male demographic and not suitable for children. The co mplainant considered it ‘inappropriate to surround school children with undressed women ’.

Response: i n response to this complaint, Formula E replied that they aim ‘to target

Page 34 of 50




Formula E review a family-friendly market and commented ‘It is true that promotional models (both male and female) are used for short periods of time during Formula E races.

However, Formula E purposefully uses both female and male models for this and do not consider that they are dressed inappropriately for their role, which is in no way is to p rovide ‘adult content’.



Battersea Park as the London venue for Formula E

If Formula E is brought back to London next year a different location should be considered. Crystal Palace has a former Formula 1 race track…to have the event there would cause less public disruption...

Response: it is understood that FE wanted a location as close to the centre of

London as possible.



Why have FE not been found a more appropriate place for their event? …Why not let them use the roads in London?

Response: as above re: preferred site and an enclosed site is easier to manage than an on-road site.

There was a restricted view of the actual race track from the stands. Young and older residents became very bored as they were unable to see much of the actual live event. Due to the heavy tree coverage in the Park Battersea Park is the wrong venue for such an event .

Response: By definition, stands indicate that a person will remain in one place and will therefore be unlikely to see more activity than that which takes place in their

Impact on the locality

 field of vision. Giant screens and in-ear audio systems were, however, employed and would be used in greater abundance in any future event. .

There was pressure on the roads.

Response: This is disputed, no issues were witnessed by the Council’s highways team, nor raised by TfL or the Met Police.

Litter





The pressure on the roads and the number of people attending which caused a massive increase in litter in the area which is still to be cleared in the area.

Response: other than several overflowing litter bins outside the park, which can be addressed for any future event, there was only a limited litter impact locally. Litter clearance in the park was dealt with satisfactorily by the contractor.

There were still thousands of used black plastic cable lock ties littering the pavement.

Page 35 of 50



Response: these should not have been left, but were litter-picked over the following days. Formula E have confirmed that their contractors would be tasked to address this if the event continues.

Impact on businesses

 The 'Formula E' event did not offer stalls or areas in their food village to local

 businesses but instead to massive companies such as Dominos (this does not sit very well with their environmental and sustainable message). If they want to help the local area then they should have invited local businesses into the event. Their counter argument would be that local businesses benefitted as there was more footfall past their doors but this is inaccurate as there was no one buying from the street stalls set up in front of cafes etc. on Battersea Park Road.

Response : the opportunity for local businesses and park concessions to participate more (the Albert public house and La Gondola café were used) can be discussed

 further with Formula E in the event of any future race(s).

Ecology, wildlife and zoo animals

Bat roosts were disturbed. The park is a recognised area of bat conservation.

Response: there are no known bat roosts in the park.

 Local wildlife was disturbed and not able to move freely in the park.

Response: it is considered that only temporary disturbance was caused, with no lasting effect. An ecological imp act survey was carried out in respect of Formula E’s planning application.

Zoo animals were traumatised.

Response: the Council and Formula E agreed a full package of animal welfare measures which would be reviewed for any future event.

The zoo’s management commented on how quiet the event was.



.

Formula E is not green. It was probably one of the most environmentally and ecologically damaging events held in London over the last year, certainly when you factor in the damage to a semi-natural public green space.

Response

: it would be more correct to describe the event as ‘blue’ rather than

‘green’ in that it seeks to promote a technology that will ultimately develop ‘green’ motoring.

June is peak bird nesting season. It is clear that the noise and disruption caused by the lorries and workmen during the construction and de-rig phase and noise from helicopters during the event had a significant negative effect. On the Monday after the event a duck and 7 ducklings were found in the garden of my building. I live directly opposite the park and it is pretty clear they were scared over from the park

Page 36 of 50


Formula E review due to the Formula E event. The porter managed to transport 6 ducklings safely back to the park and one was found dead the next day. This is just one isolated, first hand example. I am certain many other birds were negatively affected or died.



Response: this is conjecture; an Ecology Impact Assessment was undertaken by

Formula E in support of their planning application and was considered adequate by the Council. Officers are not aware of any other bird or wildlife issues other than this instance.

Damage to the park

There has been extensive tree damage.

Officers’ response: the full list of tree damage is included in Appendix 1 and is considered to be minor. If the event were to continue, better adherence to protective methods and measures should serve to prevent damage.



Much general damage was caused to the park – e.g. railings, tyre marks etc.

Officers’ response: repair of damaged fencing caused by event vehicle movement has been carried out and was paid for by Formula E. Other remedial works such as removal of paint markings and resurfacing of damaged or patched tarmac were completed in August. Efforts to remove the tyre marks have to date been unsuccessful, but if necessary the surface will be re-laid.



The oak trees by the (former) Boules area are dying as a result of the tarmacking for a chicane there.

Response: it is the professional opinion of the Council’s arboricultural advisors that some ‘die-back’ in the crowns of a number of oak trees, by the former boules area, is not linked to the Formula E event. See Appendix 1.

Page 37 of 50



Appendix 3

POSITIVE COMMENTS RECEIVED FROM THE PUBLIC

(i)

‘I am writing to congratulate you and your colleagues on the magnificent staging of the Formula E Grand Prix races last weekend.

It was fantastic to see that Battersea Park was successfully able to stage a truly world class sporting event.

Such an annual event would be tremendous in raising the profile of the park and the wider borough on the international stage, bringing a brilliant buzz and economic boost to the area. Whoever would have thought of Battersea being spoken of in the same breath as famous exotic locations such as

Monaco etc?

The advance fears and objections of the local nimby brigade appear to have been completely unfair and unfounded. I have been to Silverstone and the noise of an F1 car can be heard a mile away. Formula E on the other hand is a completely different kettle of fish.

My brother lives directly opposite the park on Queenstown Road and I can confirm that there was no audible sign of the event taking place during the qualifying and free practice stages (we were at the event during the actual race). There was also little sign of any noticeable disruption caused to neighbouring residents during the event.

If anything, the daytime weekend event was barely noticeable in comparison to the nuisance factor of the locally based (often international) boy (and possibly girl) racers who insist on revving the engines of their sports cars inappropriately at all times of the day and night on a daily basis throughout the year.

Formula E is actually a sport that is promoting the development of cleaner and more environmentally friendly technologies. It is great that Battersea

Park is being associated with such an event. Given the politics / costs of F1 and the strong anticipated trend away from fossil fuels towards electric engines, Formula E is clearly the future of motorsport.

In the face of intensifying competition to secure a slot on the race calendar in future years (as seen in F1 where many historic tracks and even countries have fallen off the race calendar in favour of newer cities making more attractive propositions), in the name of progress I would even go so far as to

Page 38 of 50


Formula E review advocate the cutting down of the odd tree here and there (that does not form part of an obvious uniformed landscaping pattern) if this could help to make the track more exciting and increase overtaking opportunities. Hundreds of trees could be replanted across the entire borough in their place for the benefit of future generations.

The economic benefits of staging a weekend of racing could no doubt be reinvested to greatly improve the landscaping and every day park experience for all visitors throughout the rest of the year.

I (like many of the other 60 thousand or so people who attended) look forward to many more thrilling ra ces in the years ahead!’

(ii)

‘Bringing electric Formula E racing to London, cars that are at the forefront of technology shows that electric is green and predominantly pollution-free. The

Mayor of London is trying to reduce pollution, showcasing technology and encouraging more use of electric vehicles, pollution in London could be drastica lly reduced and air quality improved’

.

(iii) ‘For £5 a day, I attended both the Saturday and Sunday Formula E events and had a spectacular time both days. People were so friendly. There were families with children everywhere. I had several wonderful conversations with people I had never met before because the social atmosphere was like a great big village fete with the Formula E activity a natural conversation starter. There were all kinds of people there from all walks of life and several

I talked with had come from quite a distance, while coming and going to I see and hear that people were also walking from their homes.

Since the event, I’ve seen what I thought to be quite a lot of new trees planted, and am assuming that the new Putting in the Park and the Tree

Walks are a result of the funding coming from Formula E. Already I have seen Putting in the Park filled with families having a great time. There are the newly paved roads and parking area too as a benefit.

I am sad to report the reaction of two people in my church, who should know better. They both live within walking distance of the park, but drive to the park every day to walk their dogs! I was appalled at the way they huffed and puffed about how Formula E interfered with their dog walking for four weeks before and after the event. This simply is not true. I walk in the park regularly and it was only 2 days before and 2 days after that you could not get into the park at a reasonably normal level of use, if you were willing to move your activity to a slightly different area. I felt their comment reflected a terrible selfishness which seemed quite out of character.

I tell you this story because, if this is a comm on pattern, then people’s comments about Formula E should probably be assessed with this distortion of the reality in mind.

Page 39 of 50



I do think there is one improvement that could be made to minimize the impact in the period before the two days before the event. In the large open space just past Putting in the Park, they put up fencing that restricted movement across the open space except for the pavements. If those fences could be put up three days before the event, there would be at least a week more of normal use of the space.

I’m sure that both your teams and the organizer’s teams will have learned a lot in this first experience of running Formula E about improvements they can make. I will be very disappointed if you and they do not have the opportunity to demonstrate these improvements by running the Formula E event again next year in Battersea Park.’


Page 40 of 50


APPENDIX 4

FORMULA E SURVEY RESULTS

1. By the time the consultation closed at midnight on 6th September, 1334 responses had been received online. A further 32 hard copy responses were received from the

150 requested and despatched. A map showing respondents’ distribution across the

Borough is available.

2. The survey included 4 open-ended questions, each of which was completed by over

1,000 respondents, often in some depth. In order to fully understand the nature of these comments, anonymised responses have been “coded” by an independent market research company, Plus Four Market Research.

3. As might be expected, almost two-thirds of respondents describe themselves as frequent visitors to the park.

Over the past year, how often on average have you used the park? (1366 responses) 1

Several times a week 47%

At least once a week

At least once a fortnight

Once a month

19%

8%

11%

Less than once a month

Never

10%

1%

The Formula E event was my first visit

3%

4. Those who had attended the event were fairly well represented in respondents.

Did you attend the event? (1366)

Yes - on the Saturday

Yes - on the Sunday

Yes - on both days

No

11%

13%

8%

69%

5. Respondents were asked for any comments they wished to make about the lead up to the event. 1,034 people commented. Most (80%) are negative and cite the disruption to their use of the park and lack of information as the main problems. The most common comments are shown in the table below. Many commentators made several comments so figures may add to more than 100%.

Positive

Enjoyed the event/good idea 5% Disruption

1 Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding

Page 41 of 50

Negative

30%



Well organised/planned / managed

Little/no disruption/didn’t affect us

Good publicity/information/advertising

4%

4%

5%

Access difficulties/ getting around the park

Trucks/deliveries/health & safety issues/dangerous

Lack of/misleading information/ need earlier/better publicity/no consultation

23%

22%

21%

Lead up too long

Could not use the park

15%

13%

Assessment by those attending the event

Not appropriate for FE

Noisy/loud helicopters

10%

8%

6. Those who had attended the event were asked for their overall assessment and to rate various aspects of the event.

How would you rate the quality of the event? (394)

Excellent

27%

Very good

39%

Fair

19%

Poor

7%

Very poor

6%

How would you rate the following aspects of the event within the park?

Very good

Good Neither good nor bad

Poor Very poor

Unsure

2%

Unsure

Level of noise

(384)

Public safety

(378)

Litter (382)

Ease of getting around the event (386)

50%

52%

36%

20%

25%

30%

35%

30%

11%

10%

13%

21%

6%

3%

8%

18%

7%

4%

5%

9%

1%

2%

2%

2%

7. By and large, the park was seen as a good venue for the event by those who attended it. However, access within the park was clearly an issue for a sizeable minority and is reflected in verbatim comments later in the survey.

The effect of the event on the area around the park

8. All respondents were asked to assess the scale of effects on the park. The figures below are based on responses from between 1206 and1231 people.

Public Transport

(1206)

Badly affected

19%

Affected to a small degree

30%

Not affected at all

23%

Unsure or don’t know

27%

Page 42 of 50



14% Noise levels

(1224)

Litter (1227)

Parking (1231)

38%

33%

33%

21%

28%

21%

27%

21%

20%

18%

27%

9. A significant minority felt the area was badly affected in one or more ways but a larger group felt the effect was minor or non-existent.

Perceived benefits and disadvantages of the event

10. 1,144 people commented on the main benefit of the event. A broad description of the comments is provided below. It should be noted that some of the descriptions have doubleedged meanings. In the case of “money/finance for the Council”, for example, many of the comments were couched in terms that suggest this is not seen as a genuine advantage.

Main benefit

No benefit

Money/finance/profit for the Council

Major event for the area/fun day out

Money for the park

Promoting Battersea/the local area

Promoting alternative energy/ electric cars

Increasing awareness/use of the park

36%

23%

10%

8%

8%

7%

6%

11. 1,158 people commented on the main disadvantage of the event.

Main disadvantage

Could not use the park

Disruption

Noisy/loud helicopters

Wrong location/not appropriate for FE

Park damaged/trees & hedges damaged/increased tarmac/concrete

Access difficulties/getting around the park

No disadvantages

Trucks/deliveries/traffic/dangerous

31%

26%

17%

14%

14%

11%

11%

10%

The future

12. A clear majority of respondents do not want to see FE as an annual event in the park.

There is a group that is strongly opposed. Although the margin is rather tighter than might have been expected, analysis of open-ended responses does not suggest they will be persuaded.

Do you agree or disagree that Formula E should be an annual event in the park? (1229 responses)

Page 43 of 50



Strongly agree

Agree Neither agree nor disagree

Disagree Strongly disagree

Can’t say

26% 9% 3% 6% 56% 1%

13. Asked what improvements they would want to see IF the event were repeated, 1,125 people commented. The most common responses are shown below. The largest group do not want the event to be repeated. Others who suggested improvements often did so in reluctant terms (“If it must happen…..”).

Changes for the future

Should not take place again

More viewing place/big screens/better information on where to go, better seating

Much shorter lead up time

Free access to park areas not involved/ don’t close the park

Much shorter break-down/clean up time

Discounted/free/more tickets available for

35%

17%

15%

12%

10%

9% residents

Better explanation/information for residents 7% pre-event

Improve access during lead up/break-down 7%

No helicopters 6%

Conclusion

14. The survey cannot be described as statistically representative in any way. It was an opportunity for people to comment and many have done so, but we cannot weigh this against the local or Borough population or the number of visitors to the event. Even so, the level and strength of opposition to the event is clear. It does not appear that many of those opposed expect any changes/improvements to change their views.


Page 44 of 50

Draft 12

– 16.11.15

APPENDIX 6

Initial Equality Impact Assessment.

Reviewed by Policy Unit 16.11.15.

Department

Decision

HCS

To decide whether to permit the Formula E event to continue to be held in Battersea Park in 2016 and 2017, subject to planning permission.

Paul McCue, Clare O’Connor People involved

1. What is the decision?

Following the Council’s in principle decision in Paper No. 14-651 to conclude a five-year Venue Use Agreement for the staging of a Formula E motor racing event in Battersea Park, planning permission was granted by the Planning Applications Committee of

18th February 2015 (application number 2014-6976). The event was successfully held, as scheduled, on 27th and 28th June

2015.

Members are now being asked to consider whether the event should continue.

2. What is the rationale behind the decision?

Following the Council’s in principle decision to conclude a five-year Venue Use Agreement for the staging of a Formula E motor racing event in Battersea Park, planning permission was granted by the Planning Applications Committee of 18th February 2015

(application number 2014-6976).

The event was successfully held, as scheduled, on 27th and 28th June 2015.There was positive national and international coverage of the event and while there were elements of sustained and vociferous opposition, particularly from residents local to the park and from regular users of the park, this has to be considered in the light of the financial benefit to the Council and the promotion of the Borough as being supportive of new technology which, longer-term, will influence the development of road-going electric cars and inner-city air quality.

Page 45 of 50



3. What information do you have on the policy and the potential impact of the decision in relation to the following?

Race

Data

No data is collected on park usage. The data used in this EIA relates to Queenstown ward 2011

Census data.

35.7% of Queenstown Ward residents are BME. This is above the borough average of 28.6%

Gender

Disability

Age

Faith

51 % of Queenstown residents are female. This is the same as the borough average.

3.2% of Queenstown residents are long term sick or disabled. This is above the borough average of

2.9%

7.8% of Queenstown residents are aged 65+ and 17.4% are aged 0-19. In both cases this is below the

Borough averages of 8.8% and 19.9% respectively.

56.4% of residents are Christian which is above the borough average of 53%. 24.4% of residents stated they had no religion which is below the borough average of 27% and 8.1% of residents are

Muslim which is the same as the borough average.

Data is not collected via the Census. Sexual Orientation

4. Thinking about each group below please list the impact that the policy will have .

Race

Positive impacts of decision

Funding raised by permitting Formula E to be held at Battersea Park will ensure that the infrastructure of the park can be maintained and improved. This will impact on all park users regardless of protected characteristic.

No specific complaints relating to the

Equality Duty or residents with a protected characteristic were made during this year’s

Possible negative impacts of decision

The closure of the park for the two-day period of the event will have impacted on all park users. Given that data is not collected on users of the park the impact on BME park users can not be quantified.

However, in order to mitigate against the closure of the park, areas of the park were kept open including the Riverside Walk and another area adjacent to the eastern edge of the park These areas were well-used during the two days by the general public. If the event were held in the future planning for it would address similar or alternative provision.

Page 46 of 50


Age event or subsequently.

Preliminary discussions have been held between Council officers and Formula E’s

Director of Human Resources and indicate that Formula E would be willing to offer four or five three-month placements for

Wandsworth care leavers/sixth formers/school leavers. The placements

(with pay of £500 per month) would cover roles such as communications; marketing, finance, operations and administration.

This would have a positive impact on the young people who engage in the programme.

Areas of the park were kept open for park users to walk their dogs and also exercise during the event. If the event were held again in the future planning will address similar or alternative provision.


Equality Duty or residents with a protected characteristic were made during this year’s event or subsequently .


Complaints and feedback were received regarding the build phase and were also received relating tannoy noise/music and the intrusive noise from a helicopter used for filming. This will have impacted on the 35.7% of residents who are BME. If the event were held in the future these elements would be reviewed, with the aim of reducing disturbance.

Go-

Ape was not operational at the time of this year’s event.

However were the event to be held in future years it is likely it would be impacted by the build phase and closure during the event period.

This will mean that young people are unable to access the facilities.

The children’s play area was closed during the event. If the event were to be held in future years this would mean children, their families and carers would be unable to access this facility over a period and would have to find alternative areas to play. There are ten other playground sites managed by Enable Leisure and Culture in the SW8/SW11 area which will be open for use.

Children and elderly residents living near the park may have been disturbed by the noise of the build phase and during the event. If the event were held again in the future this would be mitigated by planning for any future event including more provision of audience earpieces (to reduce tannoy use) and alternatives to, or reduced use of, helicopters.

School sports and activities were impacted during the 2015 event with just two school sports days unable to be relocated elsewhere, and one school booking of the athletics track.

If the event were held in the future, more notice would be given in order to mitigate against this and identify suitable alternative facilities.

Page 47 of 50



Gender

Disability

Funding raised by permitting Formula E to be held at Battersea Park will ensure that the infrastructure of the park can be maintained and improved.. This will impact on all park users regardless of protected characteristic.


Equality Duty or residents with a protected characteristic were made during this year’s event or subsequently.

Funding raised by permitting Formula E to be held at Battersea Park will ensure that the infrastructure of the park can be maintained and improved. This will impact on all park users regardless of protected characteristic.


Equality Duty or residents with a protected characteristic were made during this year’s event or subsequently.

The closure of the park for the two-day period of the event will have impacted on all park users. Given that data is not collected on users of the park the impact on female park users can not be quantified.

However, in order to mitigate against the closure of the park areas of the park were kept open including the Riverside Walk and another area adjacent to the eastern edge of the park These areas were well-used during the two days by the general public. If an event were held again in the future planning will address similar or alternative provision.

Complaints and feedback were received regarding the build phase and were also received relating tannoy noise/music and the intrusive noise from a helicopter used for filming. This will have impacted on the female residents. If an event were held in the future planning for would include more provision of audience earpieces (to reduce tannoy use) and alternatives to, or reduced use of, helicopters.

Photos were published of a blind resident being guided during the build phase. If the event were held again to ensure the safety of residents during the build of any future events, consideration would be given to sequential closing of segments of the park on a ‘rolling programme’ basis and better briefing of stewards.

The closure of the park for the two-day period of the event will have impacted on all park users. Given that data is not collected on users of the park the impact on disabled park users cannot be quantified.

However, in order to mitigate against the closure of the park, areas of the park were kept open including the Riverside Walk and another area adjacent to the eastern edge of the park These areas were well-used during the two days by the general public. If the event were held in the future planning for it would address similar or

Page 48 of 50


Formula E review alternative provision.

Complaints and feedback were received regarding the build phase and were also received relating tannoy noise/music and the intrusive noise from a helicopter used for filming. This will have impacted on disabled residents. If an event were held in the future planning for would include more provision of audience earpieces (to reduce tannoy use) and alternatives to, or reduced use of, helicopters.

As above Sexual orientation

Faith

As above

As above No specific complaints were made by local places of faith. Care was taken to design the event infrastructure around the Peace Pagoda and to inform the monk.

5. Is a full EIA required?

No.



Does the policy support a frontline service? It is not a frontline service but does impact on residents



Is it clear what impact the decision will have on all the equality groups? The EIA has identified positive and negative impacts, but during this year’s event no specific complaints relating to the Equality Duty were made.



Overall will the decision have a negative impact on any of the equality groups? The EIA has identified positive and negative impacts, but during this year’s event no specific complaints relating to the Equality Duty were made

6. Through the initial EIA have you identified any actions that needed to be implemented to improve access or monitoring of the policy? (please list)

Yes - if an event were held in the future planning for it include: more provision of audience earpieces (to reduce tannoy use) and consideration of alternatives to, or reduced use of, helicopters; additional measures to improve the safety of residents during the build period, by consideration of sequential closing of segments of the park on a ‘rolling programme’ basis and better briefing of stewards. More notice would be given in order to mitigate against any impact on planned school sports events by identifying

Page 49 of 50


Formula E review suitable alternative facilities.

Signed: P. McCue

Date: 16 th November 2014

Approved by: C. O’Connor


Page 50 of 50

Formula-E Review OSC draft 4

Related documents

Products

Support

Formula-E Review OSC draft 4

Related documents

Add this document to collection(s)

Add this document to saved

Suggest us how to improve StudyLib