Solving global problems, creating local ones?

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]

In his second guest article for e-racing.net, Edward Hunter takes a look at the outcome of the Wandsworth Council’s decision on the future of the London ePrix in Battersea Park and what returning to the venue means for the series itself.

On the 24th of November, after a nearly three hour meeting in Wandsworth town hall the decision to continue holding the London ePrix at Battersea Park until 2017 was made. This came as no surprise seeing as Formula E announced the dates for the race as early as 30th of June.

Appropriately enough, the town hall itself is a monument to wealth; a huge building with lavishly decorated marble floors and expensive chandeliers hanging from the patterned ceilings; an Ivory Tower for decision makers. The meeting, which had started with so much optimism from the unexpectedly large number of protestors who gathered outside Wandsworth Town Hall proclaiming homemade banners and chanting enthusiastically (but thankfully not in an over-aggressive or intimidating manner) eventually descended into tedium and farce.

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][cq_vc_accordion contentcolor=”#333333″ contentbg=”#ffffff” accordiontitle=”Deputations,Struggle between Left and Right,The problem Formula E now faces” titlecolor=”#5da73c” contaienrwidth=”100%” displayfirst=”on”][accordionitem]

The opening deputation was from John Fox, the founder of Save Battersea Park. Most of these speeches covered similar ground, but to summarise: John addressed the “Crass management of the event”, questioned whether the figures of attendance for the weekend were as high as the council claimed them to be, described the event’s green credentials as tantamount to “Cooking an Organic Sausage on a patio heater”, and finally he referenced the council’s own poll in which 63% of approximately 1670 contributors voted against FE’s return. Immediately after finishing his speech, John was falsely accused by councillor Ian Hart of adding comments to his own group’s petition under fictitious aliases, which John denied. It became apparent afterwards that councillor Hart had mistaken a page on the council’s website for the petition, so his attack was unjustified and could be seen as an attempt to undermine the legitimacy of the campaign in the eyes of the public, rather than to engage with any of the points raised. Predictably, the Protesters were incensed by this and vocally expressed their displeasure. John was also quizzed on his health and safety concerns, he made a slightly dubious anecdotal claim that he saw a Forklift going at about 25 MPH swinging equipment near the public, but there was only one case of injury reported. He cited the proximity of the vehicles to children and emphasised that we were lucky nothing more serious happened. The atmosphere immediately turned sour during this deputation, and it set the tone for the rest of the evening.

Next up was Paul Ekins, professor of energy and environment policy for UCL, another prominent and active figurehead of the movement, achieved an OBE for his research with Green energy. Paul thanked Labour for listening to them and promising their support, before criticising the process the Council used during consultation. He claimed that it had been conducted so that “as few people as possible knew about it,” going on to criticise the consultation of November 2014: Deputy Council leader Jonathan Cook claimed that 200 people attended the poorly advertised meeting, when the minutes state clearly that there was only 100 present. Paul stressed that Green spaces like Battersea are vital for the mental and physical health of it’s residents, and that they were deprived of that for three weeks. He echoed John’s claim that the weekend’s attendance figures were wrong, The Council pointed to ticket sales given to them from Ticketmaster of over 55,000, which they claimed were: “similar to Berlin”, including 9,000 residents of Wandsworth borough itself and the protesters were made too look foolish, whereas they would not have done had they not forced the point so strongly. Paul pointed out that his group had done an independent survey of local businesses and they discovered that many actually had significantly less customers through the doors during the race weekend, contrary to the council’s reports. He also accused Formula E of contradicting its focus on long term green issues by trashing a park, and that it cannot be truthfully sold as a low carbon event, especially without any Carbon Audit to back that up, to which the Council suggested that they could instead advertise it as a ”blue event” rather than a green one. However, when the Councillors defended the technology Formula E used, Paul agreed, saying: “Formula E, in trying to show what EVs are capable of, has my full support.” But he went on to explain that there were other venues interested and better suited to holding the event such as the ExCel exhibition centre in Docklands. Finally, he also felt that the race did little to improve the take-up of EVs in the area, and that increasing the amount of charging stations would be a much less intrusive and more effective way to do that in Battersea.

Battersea Society, represented by David Lewis, followed. In a pleasantly surprising endorsement of e-racing.net, Mr. Lewis chose to quote a passage written by a “knowledgeable Formula E enthusiast” (praise indeed for a guest writer!) where I questioned whether modifications to the park would be needed for the circuit to remain viable given how narrow the track is and leap up in performance and power we have seen in the season 2 powertrains: (with 170KW/h this season compared to 150KW/h in the first season). Just to illustrate what I was talking about, in Beijing both e.Dams cars were able to lap over four seconds faster than the previous year’s lap record, and even at the more technical Putrajaya circuit cars lapped up to two seconds faster than before. But the Council dismissed this with the brief explanation that “Formula E have not contacted us about making any changes to the track.” Susan Lofthouse of Save Battersea Park mentioned to me that a few days before the meeting workers had been seen in the park making measurements for the curbs to be used in next year’s event, so it would be a surprise to not see a slightly revised circuit used in 2016. Mr. Lewis also pointed out the similarities with this situation and that of Miami, a season one venue that has since been dropped due to opposition from environmentalists. He highlighted comments made by Battersea race winner Sebastien Buemi, who criticised the lack of overtaking opportunities and spectators views, and concluded that there wasn’t space to make a better track there. The council’s response was merely to say that other drivers were more complementary during the event. Jack pointed out the example of Jerome d’Ambrosio prior to the race praising the fact that they were racing in a park, but personally I don’t recall a single driver who took part at Battersea and did not make a reference to how narrow the track was and the difficulty that caused for overtaking. Finally, Mr. Lewis described the park as an ‘Obstacle course’ during it’s chaotic setup, to which Councillor Kim Caddy (who chaired the meeting) suggested that better signage could be implemented.

The fourth deputation was from Jan Bonner and the York mansion blocks group. They opened by stating that the race was a well great and well run event, but it did not give anything back apart from disruption: “This event does not enhance the local reputation or respect of the park…young people couldn’t use the park during construction.” They stressed that there was a lack of gardens in London and that Battersea was an important open space for the public, and criticised the initial meeting for its poor organisation, and mentioned that they were not impressed with the way they had lost their risk assessment; tellingly, the council did not at any point give an answer as to how/ why this happened. Unfortunately their earlier praise of the race was somewhat undermined when one of the mansion blocks group claimed that for spectators without a screen it was: “Quite boring Scalextrics”. One Conservative councillor responded to claims that they didn’t look after local interests with anecdotal evidence that he had talked to estate residents who were: “Thrilled to be able to go to something they couldn’t afford anywhere else in London”. Councillor Rosemary Torrington expressed her opinion that “Parks are a luxury” because they could be cut before adult services or schools as it is not a statutory obligation. If ever there was a statement that would antagonise residents, this was it. Mrs. Bonner instantly slammed councillor Torrington’s comments, and went on to say that the only strong case being made as to why the Council said yes to Formula E was a financial one. (Although the Council refused to share the figures with us,we were reliably informed that the council was given £1 million by Formula E in an initial payment, but not annually).

Frances Radcliffe and the Friends of Battersea Park were the last group to make a deputation. Mrs. Radcliffe began by stating that the previous groups had all spoken passionately and earnestly. They talked about how shocked everyone was by the manner in which the park was taken over by 800 HGV’s, comparing it to: “Putting boulders in a ming vase.” When questioned they said that they naturally welcomed the money the event bought in, but that it would not reduce their opposition to what they felt was an “inappropriate” use of the park. They alluded to a lack of trust in the council’s ability to fix the issues raised, and said that we were fortunate not to see rainfall as it would have turned the E-village into a bog. The Friends seemed to be unaware that we did get a heavy rain shower towards the end of qualifying for the second race, but I can only assume the point being made here was that these issues of bog, small though they may be, would not be present at alternative venues such as ExCel. They also criticised the press notices for presenting the situation as completely fine, when this was not the case in reality.

James Cousins made an additional speech before the debate began in earnest. He was formerly a Conservative councillor who did not back the decision to host the race, and for various reasons resigned the Conservative whip to become an independent candidate, which means as a result his vote on this matter was taken away and some of his influence removed. Pre-emptively stating that his opener would not be popular amongst the gallery, James commended the council on their bravery and ambition in pursuing the Formula E race bid and got the response he predicted, which I felt given James’ well known stance on the issue was an extremely short-sighted one by protesters. I was proven correct when James added that “It took guts and leadership – but one of the hallmarks of great leadership is that you admit mistakes.” He went on to say that the presence of approximately 150-200 protestors on the night was the culmination of the opposition to formula e in the park, and it was unprecedented in his 17 years as a councillor. He asked what kind of council Wandsworth wanted to be and suggested that they had not done a good enough job in representing local people, mentioning that he hoped to see local democracy in action. He ended by saying: “everyone here knows that (what happened at) Battersea park crossed a line, and we have the chance to give the park back to the people who love it.”

[/accordionitem]
[accordionitem]

Once James had finished the Conservative councillors began to make their case for why the race should continue at Battersea. They downplayed the disruption, councillor Paul Mccue stating that only two schools had to cancel their sports days as they could not be relocated or held in the park. They did agree however with complaints made about the tyre marks remaining months after the race, infact stating that it was “worse than expected”. They were also surprised by the Helicopter noise as the council was unaware beforehand of the extent it would go on for, and the following day the Council released a statement pledging that: “The organisers will explore alternatives to using helicopters to deliver aerial shots of the race.” Another point made was that of the Wandsworth borough population (300,000 approximately) the total number of vocal opponents to the race was given a “generous estimate” of 10,000; the implication being that they were considered little more than a noisy minority, which to an extent is true, although I would imagine it unlikely that the entirety of the remaining 290,000 support the event by default. Councillor Mccue went on to claim that the report made by Friends of Battersea Park overall supported the event, despite David Lewis’s deputation clearly stating otherwise. It was explained that if Formula E continued then much needed maintenance for leaky ponds and cascades could be funded, and the vehicle gates widened as a result of the income it would bring.

The justification for why they could not reveal the amount of money involved is that they don’t want other locations to know what they were paid, in the fear that they could act on that, offer more money and force Wandsworth Council to sign a more expensive contract to compete with them financially. Councillor Hart suggested that regular park users should be content with travelling to either Tooting or Wandsworth Common, made it clear that he would “Bite someone’s hand off” for £600,000 in return for the disturbance, and also said that only 0.4% of residents were objecting, based upon objections received and the total population of the borough. Allegedly, after the deputations were finished, Hart was heard to describe the speeches as “diarrhoea and verbal rubbish”. However they at least recognised some of the areas that the event did not handle as well as it should have done, and promised to improve certain aspects from the 2016 event onwards. The general impression  was that the Conservatives were not able to reconcile their decision to continue the event with locals, and instead further increased the enmity and distrust that they feel towards their councillors; resident Paul Cook gave me his opinion when he told me on my podcast in September: “This is clearly a council that does not enjoy or encourage debate.”

What should have been a balanced debate about whether the venue was appropriate or not had been dragged into a struggle between the Left and the Right, which the latter won through it’s strength in numbers. The verdict was passed 7-4 in the end.

[/accordionitem]
[accordionitem]

Despite the outcome, there was some hope among protesters that they might be able to successfully appeal the verdict at the full council meeting on December 9th, (oday before the break clause deadline) but this ultimately never looked likely to happen; the best the protesters could hope for if all the independent candidates backed them was a 37:22 loss, again to the Conservative majority, so the re-approval of the race was even less of a surprise at this second meeting. When asked what their next steps will be the protestors replied that on top of continuing to send concerned messages to the event’s sponsors, there will also be further peaceful demonstrations outside the park during the track build and the race weekend itself. The advice they gave me though was that as long as it was happening then Formula E have to ensure that it is the least disruptive event it can be; we must make the best of a less than ideal situation.

Who was the biggest loser in all of this? Formula E fans. I can imagine that must sound ridiculous seeing as plenty of them celebrated the outcome; many seem to subscribe to the idea that the reason the vote went the way it did was because the Conservative councillors were really passionate about Formula E, and as such defended it with well put together arguments; that’s not something I agree with. I felt from watching the meeting that they had a significant lack of passion or knowledge for the sport or EV technology, which leads me to believe that financial gain was the motivating factor for their votes; the justification seemed to be that they needed the money, but they couldn’t tell us how much or give a good explanation what it would be spent on. (Councillor Mccue decided to list some of the park benefits that the income would go toward, and one of them was described as little more than a “storage shed”). The result is that Formula E returns to a narrow ‘stop-start’ circuit broken up by five separate chicanes, where overtaking is pretty rare and many trackside views are heavily compromised by tree lines. On the other hand, if the crowd is like last year then it should be able to easily accommodate for everyone, and the park itself has a very natural and picturesque atmosphere. Whether that will be unspoilt after two more return trips though remains to be seen.

Tellingly, at the announcement of the Roborace support series a few days after the council meeting, Agag brought up the fact that the race at Battersea was going ahead, to which Denis Sverdlov, head of the company building the autonomous cars, mentioned that he had been worried the race would not take place due to reports he had been reading about protesters. Agag responded by talking about the disruption, explaining that initially he wanted to use Armco barriers which would have meant using less HGV’s, (About 10 or so he claimed) but was told it would take too long and cause too much damage doing it that way, and so went for concrete blocks, necessitating 400 HGV’s to construct the track and just as many to take it down again afterwards. Agag then joked that he was waiting for Sverdlov to develop electric trucks in order to reduce their impact.

 It must be said that despite some of the excellent work Agag has done to get Formula E off the ground and to ensure it’s continued survival and success, the situation in Battersea is partly of his own making; the narrative he presented was that he had consulted extensively with local residents and that he had taken their concerns to heart and even made a few concessions towards them to allow the race to proceed with their blessings, but the reality was that until the construction started almost nobody knew it was going to happen. Agag needs to get on top of this, because Battersea is not the only venue where these problems have arisen…

As said before, the Wandsworth Town Hall meeting was a farce and benefitted neither side. In my opinion, Formula E should have cut out the middlemen and sent a spokesperson to meet with the protesters directly; the internal meetings I attended at a community centre near the park would have been an ideal opportunity to open a dialogue with them face to face; it may not seem like much, but there are clearly communication issues here which have perpetuated an already difficult scenario, and I can’t help but feel that a direct line between the FEH company and the residents could maybe cut through the politics and go some way towards finding a solution to satisfy both parties. Perhaps if Formula E had taken this approach with their initial consultation then the ‘NIMBYs’ would have been able to act early enough to prevent the event from happening in the first place, but it is far better to ask for the earth than to take it.

I think many people within the sport will naturally dismiss the demonstrations at the gates of Battersea as unimportant, but we can’t afford to be apathetic towards them for much longer. Their dissent is indicative of a much more negative perception of Formula E which is starting to emerge in some quarters; that this is a championship which takes what it wants and doesn’t care about the people it affects or the damage that it leaves behind. We need to work to disprove that view, allay their concerns and to tangibly show that Formula E is a strong catalyst for EV development and is helping to reduce emissions as well as provide sport and entertainment. But you don’t solve a global problem by creating a local one, and with the cars getting faster and a limited amount of space on the park’s narrow ringroads, how many years can the Battersea adventure last before Formula E outgrows this circuit? We will have to see what happens between now and the next break clause in 2017.

[/accordionitem][/cq_vc_accordion][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]

Edward Hunter | Formula E Addicts, guest writer for e-racing.net

Title image courtesy of FIA Formula E Media
All other images courtesy of Edward Hunter

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]