WALTHAM FOREST: 'No deal' on college Olympic campsite
12:28pm Tuesday 7th February 2012 in Where I Live By Daniel Binns
Sir George Monoux College
A COLLEGE has denied signing a deal for a campsite on its grounds during the Olympics, but said it is considering the plan.
Yesterday (Monday February 6) the Guardian revealed how 'The London Camping Company' was taking bookings online for £40-a-night pitches at Sir George Monoux College in Walthamstow and Ive Farm in Leyton.
However it appears the firm is yet to formally secure either site, although Waltham Forest Council has so far failed to comment.
It comes just weeks after it emerged that the council had controversially agreed to lease Low Hall Sports Ground in Walthamstow for use as a campsite without any consultation with residents.
According to the londoncampingcompany.com, both proposed campsites at Ive Farm and the college will have on-site catering.
A 60 metre bar is also promised in at least one of the sites, along with "a 140 seater cinema, gymnasium, outdoor games area...[and] Sky TV throughout the complex".
But in a statement, a spokeswoman for Sir George Monoux, in Chingford Road, denied any deal had been signed.
She said: "[The] college is currently exploring the possibility of its premises being used to support the Olympics Games this summer.
"We are investigating opportunities to become involved in the Games, but would like to reassure local residents that any contract we enter into will be well thought out to ensure it has minimal impact on the local community.
"The college will be talking to local residents at its Residents’ Committee meeting coming up very shortly where residents will be able to discuss any proposed plans with the college."
Ive Farm, a derelict athletics track owned by the council, was controversially left out of council plans last year to renovate playing fields in the borough using Olympic money.
The authority earlier refused to comment on rumours it was being considered for use as a temporary campsite.
The council said it signed the Low Hall campsite deal to help pay for its 'Big 6' series of events to celebrate the Olympics, which could end up costing more than £1.5million.
However the Low Hall contract is not expected to generate enough cash to cover all the costs.
The authority previously said it plans to sign another contract - thought to be the apparent imminent deal with the London Camping Company - to pay for the rest.
Are you a local resident near the college or Ive Farm? What do you think? Contact reporter Daniel Binns on 0779 547 6625 or via email at dbinns@london.newsquest.co.uk
Comments(5)
Don't Give Up
says...
9:44pm Tue 7 Feb 12
Finally, I would like to ask the Guardian to print mdj's comments in full in their next publication to all areas of Waltham Forest.
Thank you.
peaceful
says...
9:15am Wed 8 Feb 12
Nairn
says...
9:59am Wed 8 Feb 12
are you sure about the licence for Low Hall? We were told at the public meeting that the licence application still had to be submitted by the camp organisers and that we would be given 28 days during which to lodge objections?
mdj
says...
12:28pm Wed 8 Feb 12
One does wonder, as with the LOCOG application, granted last night, to devastate the Marshes, why this wasn't discussed at a more reasoned pace a year or two ago.
mdj says...
1:30pm Tue 7 Feb 12
This seems like an open admission of a completely unforced error on the Council's part: the Big 6 events are completely unnecessary, optional spending, not a statutory duty, and not covered by any existing funding stream.
The Council signed undertakings that it then had to think up ways of funding; the profitability for US of these camps - which in principle are not a bad idea at all - is not, it seems, guaranteed, but conditional upon results.
Tonight the Licensing Committee will be asked to agree an entertainments licence for the Low Hall proposal: local residents still have continuing concerns about it, but the Council has already signed the lease! So what pressure will this put upon the Committee? Will the profitability of the camp depend on the sort of drinking culture that residents have concerns about?
Whether these camps pay off for the Council or not, a large amount of official time will have been seized by a function which is basically a distraction from the purpose of those officials' employment.
The only guaranteed beneficiary of this circle of transactions is Cooperative Events. The Coop is a major supporter of the Labour Party, which has faced solvency problems in recent years.
Does the deal suddenly look rather less like an unforced error to other readers?