HIGHLY-controversial plans to hold the Olympic horse events in Greenwich Park are opposed by almost 70 per cent of local residents, the first full-scale survey has found. The survey, by the London Assembly, is a serious blow to the Olympic organisers, who have always claimed – without any apparent evidence – that the horseriding event is popular.
John Fahy, Greenwich Council’s cabinet member for culture and the Olympics, said at a public meeting in March: “The Olympics in the Park have universal support.” Lord Coe, the chair of Locog, described opponents of the use of the Park as “minority voices.”
But nobody has actually known what local people think – until now. And it turns out that, in a less-than surprise development, both Greenwich Council and London 2012 have been talking out of their bottoms.
Almost 12,000 survey forms were posted or emailed to most households in the three Greenwich Council wards around the Park. 1,267 were returned – a very high response given that the respondents had to pay their own postage, and a bigger sample than in most professionally-conducted opinion polls.
Three neutrally-worded questions were asked:
1. Are you in favour of the equestrian event being held in Greenwich Park during the 2012 Olympics?
No – 68% Yes – 31% Don’t know – 1%
2. Have you received any communication from the Mayor or Locog about the possible impacts of the proposed venue within Greenwich Park?
No – 90% Yes- 10%
3. Have you been invited to or attended any public meetings regarding the equestrian competition to be held in Greenwich Park?
No – 78% Yes – 22%
Many respondents made heartfelt comments. “Our park is a rare haven of peace…I am horrified that such a short-term, temporary, status-ridden excitement can threaten the calm and spiritual nature of such a well-needed refuge for Londoners,” wrote one.
“I am fully in support of the Olympics generally, but… the changes required to Greenwich Park…seem disproportionate to the benefit of holding the event in the Park,” said another.
“There is clearly very strong feeling about this,” said Gareth Bacon, the Tory assembly member who co-ordinated the survey. “What it tells me is that Locog have not really attempted to connect at all with the people of Greenwich.”
Lord Coe will be questioned on the survey results by Assembly members today on a day which also sees the opening of London 2012’s temporary “consultation” exhibition in a vacant town centre shop (on College Approach, between Rhodes Bakery and the Admiral Hardy.)
However, the London Assembly survey provides a rather more thorough form of consultation than anything the exhibition could achieve.
The results underline, once again, the futility of Locog’s attempts to “engage” the public through what we can now safely say are unrepresentative pro-Games groups like the Greenwich Society, which yet again finds itself on the wrong end of public opinion.
As Bacon says: “In the eyes of local residents, the public consultation on the equestrian event has been woeful. Locog must understand that holding big public events or giving presentations to local societies is no substitute for trying to build a direct picture of the concerns of the majority of residents.” In an attack on the Greenwich Society, he says: “Chairs of conservation societies don’t necessarily represent the views of the wider populace.”
To be fair, however, Locog has now started direct communication with the public. More detailed plans have been published on its new Greenwich Park microsite and many households, mine included, last week received a duplicated letter from Lord Coe outlining the opportunity to “have your say” on the plans. More on that next week.
This sort of communication, according to Locog’s spokeswoman, Jacqui Brock-Doyle, is how public opinion can be turned round. “I’m not surprised by the survey result,” she said. “What we’ve been finding in our own surveys, which are being carried out at the moment, is a huge amount of misinformation – that trees will be cut down, the park closed for a year, and so on. When we sit down and talk to people, we will get a significant change in what they think.”
I disagree with Brock-Doyle: I think that most people are reacting not to the scare stories but to what the event really involves (a cumulative ten-month closure of most of the lower Park, total closure for at least a month, tree pruning, the risk of serious damage, great disruption to the neighbourhood, no legacy or other benefits whatever for Greenwich.)
It could also, of course, be argued that those who sent back their survey forms are not necessarily representative. Those who are angry with the plans would perhaps take more trouble to respond.
But what it does clearly show is what I have always believed, that active, motivated enthusiasm for the Games in the Park locally is very close to nil. Even those who do want them don’t really want them with much passion.
Whatever you think of the survey, it makes the worst possible backdrop for Locog’s planning application, expected within the month. They’d hoped that the opposition was going away. But it isn’t.
“Having the Games on our doorstep” is certainly exciting and certainly legacy enough for me, and my family and all our neighbours and friends whom are definitely up for games in the Park. Let’s just say the folks in favour are in favour and the nay-sayers are not, and looks like the never the twain shall meet…
At the end of the day, the council will decide…
I am still surprised that people actually believe that LOCOG will have the funds to pay for the required repair work after the event. The budget will be spent, whatever the pre-Games promises.
The event is going to happen in the park. Can anyone see the council, LOCOG, ODA, Mayor or the government saying no! Therefore the arguments are irrelevant as nothing will change.
This is correct and this is GREAT!
What Blissett said.
Andrew, your comments about the vapidity of the pro camp could apply to the Olympics generally. They are coming to London, whether you like it or not.
On legacy. Equestrian seems to be one of those events where legacy is always going to be hard. Anything horsey built permanently in the Park will be unwanted by most of us, hence no physical legacy (Lord knows, you’d be shouting loud enough if there was one).
But we hopefully get a less tangible legacy of kids exposed to something different, the eyes of the world on our back yard, us looking at our Park through different eyes and maybe even a couple of gold medals.
What legacy would having the event in Badminton/Hickstead etc leave? Nil, nothing at all. It would look like any other 3 day event, and be attended by the usual 3 day event crowd. Certainly I’d have no interest in going there, but I’ll be doing my damnedest to buy tickets for my family for the Games in the Park – so that’s at least 4 people who’ll be watching an equestrian event for the first time. For me and thousands like me, that alone is legacy enough.
Presumably you are opposed to Bonfire night on the heath for similar reasons – no legacy and loads of money spent?
No – my comments about the vapidity of the pro camp do not apply to the Olympics as a whole. Very clear promises of a substantial legacy have been made for the Games north of the river. Though I am certain that most of those promises will not be kept, I do think there will be some legacy, such as a new park.
Also, whether they leave a legacy or not, the Stratford end of the Games will at least do relatively little damage to anything except taxpayers’ wallets. The area where they are to be held was previously polluted and industrial and will, on balance, be improved for the Olympics having been held there.
None of this applies to Greenwich Park.
… And as far as I know, bonfire night does not require the closure of large sections of the heath for ten months!
So what legacy would you like in the Park? If they build a stadium/permanent structure, none of us would be happy. If they don’t build something permanent, you moan about no legacy (even though intangible legacies will be left). You’ve picked an aspect where LOCOG cannot win, purely to make a point.
But I’ll ask again, what legacy would there be in Badminton?
This whole legacy question is a red herring.
I’d like the organisers to stop spinning this as having a legacy to us – it’s dishonest, and it’s patronising. I’d also prefer that they hadn’t presented us with an arrogant fait accompli, with an attempt to sweeten it with the “legacy” spin.
Much better would be to ask us what we think of having the horsey stuff in the park, and how we might like to see it happening if it were to happen.
I don’t care that there’s no legacy – I do care that they are trying to convince me there is.
The games in the park are going to be great… under a 1000 days to go and counting! As Bob says, does anyone really think the authorities are going to say no??… having the equestrian event in our Park is legacy enough!
I think you misunderstand what “legacy” means.
About 10 days ago, YouGov panellists completed an on-line survey in which two of the questions were about the London Olympics. In the first question, panellists had to indicate on a sliding scale how happy they were when they heard that London had won the competition to host the Olympics; and then for a second question, on a similar sliding scale, indicate how happy they are today about London hosting the Olympics.
Often, the results of YouGov surveys are published quite quickly but I have not seen this one published. Am guessing that the result turned out to be not politically acceptable …. 🙂
Recent letters to Greenwich Time have trumpeted how the residents of Greenwich will soon be able to enjoy world-class sporting events right on their doorstep. Am I missing something? Are the Olympics committee giving free tickets to borough residents?
I came to this third or fourth hand. But, Jesus wept, what sort of ego trip is Gilligan on?