LOCOG have issued the following statement to Greenwich.co.uk in response to Andrew Gilligan’s latest article.
LOCOG believes that Greenwich Park will be a stunning venue for the Equestrian and Modern Pentathlon events in 2012. We take our responsibilities very seriously and our planning application shows the detailed work we have carried out on all aspects of our plans for Greenwich Park. We will make sure that we return the Park in the condition in which we receive it, and we have fully involved The Royal Parks and English Heritage in the development of all studies and plans.
Closure of areas of the Park
- The majority of the Park will remain open until July 2012.
- There will be some scheduled closure of the north end of the Park for the Test Event but this will re-open afterwards. Installation of the temporary arena is estimated to begin in April 2012.
- We have listened to people’s concerns and have reduced the time of full closure for the Park from six to four weeks, from 6 July to 3 August 2012.
- The Children’s Playground, the Deer Park and the majority of the Flower Garden will remain open throughout, apart from the one day that the Cross Country event will take place.
- The Park will not start closing from February 2010. Over the next two years, small sections of the Park will be cordoned off to allow ground improvement works to take place. Much of this is similar to the activity that routinely takes place already as part of The Royal Parks’ ground programme, such as mowing and aerating. It will have little impact on visitors to the Park who will still be able to access all areas freely, except for a narrow strip of ground in certain places.
- We are clear in our Planning Application (Environmental Statement: Section 3.2. Table 3.2 – Indicative programme and extent of public access) that all works related to the Games will be completed by November 2012, other than the Acid Grass Restoration and Enhancement programme which is due for completion in 2015. The amenity grass affected by our activity in the Park will be reinstated within six months.
- The Acid Grassland Restoration and Enhancement programme is a substantial three-year programme to improve the quality and extent of the acid grassland within the Park. This is a long-term programme to improve significantly the amount and quality of the acid grasslands in the Park, thus improving the Park’s ecology and offering a real legacy benefit. This is fully supported by The Royal Parks.
- Lorry and vehicle movements
- For planning purposes we have assessed the number of lorry movements on the basis of the maximum upper limit we may need to use.
- On this basis the upper limit of lorries or lorry movements required is estimated as 3,210 over a period of 26 weeks. This is an average of 43 per day and 7 per hour for the 15 weeks of set-up, and an average of 58 per day/9 per hour for the 11 weeks of removal.
- The Environmental Statement Non Technical Summary page 17 states that “Given the relatively low daily vehicle flows involved it is considered that vehicular traffic associated with the set up and removal of the event facilities would have an insignificant effect. A maximum of seven lorry movements per hour is predicted which is anticipated to have no noticeable impact on the operation of the highway network.”
- As a construction project in London, we anticipate that a Traffic Management Plan will be a condition of planning approval. This will ensure that affected local residents are kept informed and that measures are taken to minimise the impact of traffic movements. For example, minimising movement at sensitive times of the day and dispersing them throughout the week.
- We have already said that there will be no residential road closures and Romney Road will remain open.
Heritage impact
- Loss of heritage features, or preserving by record, are references to what might happen if we were to discover any previously unknown historical or archaeological items that the relevant historical or cultural authorities do not want to keep because they are of such low significance to warrant doing anything other than recording them.
- If we find anything during our work in the Park we will, of course, preserve and protect it. We will be guided at all times by the appropriate authorities.
Visual impact and trees
- The proposed perimeter security fence will run inside the existing perimeter wall for the Park. The majority of it will not be seen from outside the Park. Lighting for CCTV will be very low level.
- No trees will be removed. All trees will be protected in accordance with BS 5837:2005 Trees in relation to construction. A full Tree Protection Plan will be put into effect in partnership with The Royal Parks.
- Some minor tree pruning is unavoidable but it will be undertaken on a case by case basis with input from an arboriculturist accustomed to working in historic landscapes and in partnership with The Royal Parks. The extent of this pruning is minimal, the majority involving just branch tips, and arboricultural experts have confirmed that the proposed work poses no threat.
- Minor pruning of this nature takes place routinely as part of The Royal Parks’ normal maintenance programmes.
Legacy
- The Environmental Statement states that ‘The extent to which legacy benefits are generated by the Greenwich Park Events rather than the 2012 Games as a whole is not clear’. The Environment Statement is part of a formal planning application and as such is required to use quantifiable methodology.
- We are not surprised, three years out from the Games, that this scientific data is not available. We have always said that hosting the Olympic and Paralympic Games in Greenwich provides a legacy of increased global profile for the Borough and inspiration for its residents, and will bring sport to new audiences across the Borough and London. We fully recognise that it will take years to quantify the legacy effects of hosting the Games.
- Nevertheless, the Statement, written by independent planning specialists, clearly identifies that ‘Greenwich Council is actively promoting a range of sports activities and programmes using the 2012 Games to inspire local children and residents to become more active. The Council is also working with a number of sports governing bodies which are holding events in Greenwich in 2012 to develop opportunities to create meaningful long-term benefits’. This activity and investment has been driven by hosting the Games.
- Greenwich Council is also working with the British Equestrian Federation’s HOOF project to develop a riding school for the borough, potentially at a site on Shooters Hill.
- LOCOG is also in discussion with The Royal Parks about leaving behind a permanent legacy feature in Greenwich Park, such as an upgrade to the Children’s Playground. In addition to this, working in partnership with The Royal Parks, we will deliver on our commitment not only to reinstate but in fact to leave a larger area of high-grade acid grassland post-Games than currently exists. This is a long-term environmental legacy for Greenwich Park and, of course, requires a period of growing seasons to establish.
- The Borough of Greenwich has also already benefited from an £80 million investment in the Docklands Light Railway to extend the line to Woolwich and increase carriage provision by 55 carriages.
Public support
- We have no interest in ‘rigging’ figures. The research referred to was conducted independently for LOCOG by The Nielsen Research Company. Nielsen is one of the largest research companies in the world. The research complies fully with the MRS code of conduct.
- The 81% figure in the Evening Standard poll referred to is not a specific figure representing the residents of Greenwich. The research that LOCOG commissioned was directed at local residents and was aimed at understanding their local feelings. These two polls therefore are not comparable.
- These figures and the methodology of the Nielson survey are robust. They demonstrate the wide support for the Games in Greenwich, subject to certain conditions which we are fulfilling – specifically, closure lasting no more than six weeks and no long-term damage to the Park.
“On this basis the upper limit of lorries or lorry movements required is estimated as 3,210 over a period of 26 weeks. This is an average of 43 per day and 7 per hour for the 15 weeks of set-up, and an average of 58 per day/9 per hour for the 11 weeks of removal.”
Roughly speaking then, using LOCOG’s own optimistic conjectures, for half a year there will be lorries travelling in and out of the Park every 7.5 minutes. Inevitable congestion and queues will exacerbate traffic and pollution levels throughout the town.
And these thousands of lorry-loads are themselves feeding all manner of stuff into the Park. Of course there’s going to be a huge impact from the deployment of all of these goods.
I started with an open mind, swayed to support of the Games in the Park, but no longer. It’s going to be dreadful. And none of the elected and self-serving protagonists such as Lord Coe are going to be around after the fact to the bear the consequences.
It would be a nice parting gesture by Nick Raynsford if he were actually to make an effort to support the views of his constituents instead of his special construction interests. And it would certainly make a change from his steady stream of feudal pronouncements about how wrong everybody else is.
Deer park open? It never has been yet. I don’t think the deer are going to be very happy. And it’s going to be a bit of a squash fitting all the thousands of people who normally fill the whole Park into part of the flower garden and the children’s playground (both forbidden to dogs, incidentally).
With the map of the actual cross country course in hand I walked the cross country course on Friday 11th December 2009. I would say that the horses would have to be like the Dyson vacum cleaner able to reach the parts other cleaners cannot reach. Maybe the IOC with help from Locog have developed a new six legged horse , very small, but strong a low centre of gravity and able to turn very quickly and often. i.e the course is very cramped.
With respect to the 6000m by 10m cross country course this will take up a large amount of the available park space , about 10% . I understand that the grass on the cross country course will have to be of a different variety to the existing grass and seeding will take place in spring of 2010 . I imagine this will mean the whole of the 6000m will have to be done together . Also once done it will have to be watered and worked . To protect the grass , since we are told the park will be kept open a fence will have to be erected . This will be a 6000 m fence . I understand from the locog planning application that where the existing paths cross the course they wil be left open to allow us locals to use the park . This fence will be erected in sping 2010 , taken down in 2011 for the test event and erected thereafter and remain until the games .
How will the cricket club function and will this mean the marathon will not be able to use the park in the three years before the games. Lastly to reinstate the park will not be quick , park benches , park signs , rubbish bins , to rebuild paths . This will all take time and who will pay for it . Locog are a private company and have no money, this is what they say, therefore how will they fund the park reinstatement .
‘The extent to which legacy benefits are generated by the Greenwich Park Events rather than the 2012 Games as a whole is not clear…….We are not surprised, three years out from the Games, that this scientific data is not available” – Neither are we surprised you are saying you are not surprised. You should have carried out this research much earlier – to start work without clear benefits in Spring 2010 is not good enough.
“a permanent legacy feature in Greenwich Park, such as an upgrade to the Children’s Playground. ” – What sort of an ‘Upgrade’? Can you be more specific? Do you mean to extend it to include one of the jumps you want to leave behind but can’t build IN the play park because you have promised not to close it?? It is quite a nice play park and none of the regulars have been crying out for an ‘Upgrade’
“The proposed perimeter security fence will run inside the existing perimeter wall for the Park. The majority of it will not be seen from outside the Park. Lighting for CCTV will be very low level”…. – You may not know this as you are not familiar with Greenwich Park but there are many trees & shrubs around the Park perimeter which are bound to be damaged even if slightly – this is a PARK not a building site, not a Sports Arena – a PARK .
“Over the next two years, small sections of the Park will be cordoned off to allow ground improvement works to take place. Much of this is similar to the activity that routinely takes place already as part of The Royal Parks’ ground programme, such as mowing and aerating” – Again as people who are not familiar with Greenwich Park you won’t know that the gardeners don’t cordon off areas for mowing or aerating – and also what IS the difference between “Cordoning off” and “Closing” areas of The Park? Both mean ‘No Entry, Do Not Use’
“our commitment not only to reinstate but in fact to leave a larger area of high-grade acid grassland post-Games than currently exists. This is a long-term environmental legacy for Greenwich Park and, of course, requires a period of growing seasons to establish” – oh you DO test people’s levels of credulity!!
“Loss of heritage features, or preserving by record, are references to what might happen if we were to discover any previously unknown historical or archaeological items that the relevant historical or cultural authorities do not want to keep because they are of such low significance to warrant doing anything other than recording them” – What a wonderful PR copywriter you employ to dream up this spin ! You actually intend to STOP digging if you find something of great significance? Won’t that be a bit late?
Dear LOCOG
Have I got this right?
1. You want to close parts of Greenwich Park for prep and rep for 5 years, and fence off the cross country track for 2.5 years, which will cause disruption for joggers, games players, walkers, children and dogs?
2. You will leave parts of the Park with stronger and better looking grass. What use would this be except for, God forbid, another equestrian event?
3. You now admit that heritage features could suffer loss, after giving assurances to the local amenity societies and our local MP, who staked his reputation on them, that the Park would be returned to its previous condition; and that there would be no damage? Do you want to go down in history as the people who trashed Greenwich Park?
4. You say that irrigation will commence in spring 2010 which would put at risk the acid grasses and archaeology.
5. You are basing your case on mitigation of risk (when what is required is elimination of risk) with no guarantees that accidents won’t happen during construction? Why should we trust you?
6. You make light of the lorry movements (you say 3200 for 26 weeks; what about course preparation outside this period? Was Andrew Gilligan wrong to quote 6200 lorry movements?) but to put this in context: for the Sammy Ofer Wing, a major project for NMM, only 2500 vehicle movements will be required.
7. You say your survey was fair but why won’t you publish the questionnaire so that the public can see that it wasn’t designed to elicit a positive finding?
8. Could your chairman not be more condescending when he says he knows how much the people of Greenwich love their park? Does he not know that Greenwich Park is owned by the nation and belongs to the world? This is the same man who told the BBC last week that it is wasteful to build temporary facilities.
9. It will cost £42 million to stage these events in the Park (according to Evening Standard 09/12/09) although last March a leading economist suggested to you that using existing venues (including a local venue for the modern pentathlon) would cost under £10 million and, according to the owners, Hickstead was offered free: (http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/hickstead-for-equestrian-events-olympics-2012.html). This would have left a meaningful legacy. Being private and unaccountable, your company can waste money but your plan to use the Park is morally bankrupt, since it denies ordinary people, many without gardens, access for a month to the only practical green space for miles; and also you risk damaging dedicated trees and benches to the distress of relatives.
10. You are implying that the DLR upgrade would not have happened were it not for the events in Greenwich Park?
11. The BEF is proposing a riding school on Shooters Hill, although there are 4 riding schools within easy reach, to promote urban riding. How affordable will this be and how sustainable would any subsidy be?
12. Your competition manager, Tim Hadaway, who was part of the team that recommended Greenwich Park in 2004, said on Radio 4 last friday in response to the alleged unlawful use of Blackheath Circus Fields, “Our lawyers are dealing with the permission and they don’t foresee a problem”. You were clearly unaware of the Metropolitan Commons Act 1866, which required you to obtain permission to use BEFORE your submission for planning application.
13. You say you won’t close any roads but are you not overlooking the inadequate road infrastructure, which means the events will cause massive disruption to daily life?
14. You say the events will bring economic and social benefits. This is debatable but, in any case, won’t these happen wherever the events take place? They’re not justification for risking the nation’s heritage.
AND ALL THIS JUST SO THAT YOU CAN SHOWCASE A MINORITY SPORT AND ACHIEVE A COMPACT GAMES OBJECTIVE?