Following last week’s column by Andrew Gilligan (“”), London 2012 organisers have asked us to publish their response.
Andrew Gilligan is wrong to state that “LOCOG admits Windsor is a better venue” than Greenwich Park. We selected Greenwich Park as the most suitable and cost effective venue for the Equestrian Events and Modern Pentathlon events following a detailed evaluation of a number of potential venues by sporting and competition experts looking at all the requirements needed for an Olympic and Paralympic venue.
As part of our bid pledge we are committed to hosting a ‘compact Games’ with most venues within or near the Olympic Park in Stratford. The close proximity of Greenwich Park to the Olympic Park was a significant factor in the venue selection and this allows riders to be accommodated in the Olympic Village. There is more than adequate space for stabling in Greenwich Park and Circus Field and it is not true to claim that riders stay with their horses, they will stay in the Olympic Village.
As Tim Stockdale, Show Jumper, and member of the British Equestrian Team, said last November: “I am very impressed. I was not aware of the Greenwich Park’s sheer magnificence, tradition and heritage. It will be great to be able to stay in the Olympic Village as well so that the riders can be part of the action.”
The use of Windsor Park would result in a need for a second village to accommodate athletes for Equestrian because they would be competing over an hour away from the Olympic Village. The use of Royal Holloway College in Egham would not be a viable accommodation option for Windsor Park because it is already being used to accommodate rowers from Eton Dorney and canoeists from Broxbourne and will be full.
While Windsor Park was deemed to be adequately served by public transport it is only served by two overground links. In contrast, Greenwich Park is significantly better connected with four overground rail stations, the Jubilee line, the DLR and river services. This serves our commitment to host a public transport Games, and to allow better transportation links for spectators with minimised disruption for local residents.
Windsor Park scored well as an alternative venue in our evaluation, however, it was always a challenge to secure support for Windsor Three Day Event from the athletes and the sport because of the historically poor ground for the cross-country. In contrast, Greenwich Park has the full support of the International Equestrian Federation (FEI), the International Modern Pentathlon Federation (UIPM), the British Equestrian Federation (BEF) and Pentathlon GB.
Windsor Park does not have the infrastructure in place to host all the facilities associated with an event of this scale, for instance accommodation and catering facilities for over 200 grooms, offices and meeting space for officials, hospitality spaces and a media centre. There would be a requirement to create significant temporary facilities to host these functions, whereas all of these facilities can be housed within the existing buildings at Greenwich such as the National Maritime Museum, the Queens House and the Devonport House Hotel.
In addition, if the Equestrian events were located outside London, another London venue would have to be found to host Modern Pentathlon because all disciplines have to be completed in one day. This would not be as simple as using an existing stadium, because Olympic venues consist of many additional back of house elements which in this case would need to include stabling and training areas for the horses. Providing this for just two days of competition, when such duplication can be avoided by sharing the Greenwich facilities, would not represent cost effective delivery of the Games. It should be noted that in fact three of the five modern pentathlon events take place at Greenwich Park, not just the riding element.
Mr Gilligan is being emotive in claiming large parts of Greenwich Park will be closed for eight months and smaller parts for five years. The Park will only be closed off for four weeks in total, with the Children’s Playground and large parts of the Flower Garden remaining open apart from the days around the Cross Country event. We are clear in our planning application that all ground works related to the Games will be completed by November 2012. After the Games, The Royal Parks will implement an acid grass restoration and enhancement programme which will be funded by LOCOG. This will improve the quality and extent of the acid grassland in Greenwich Park, and will not inhibit regular use of the Park.
“We selected Greenwich Park … following a detailed evaluation of a number of potential venues by sporting and competition experts looking at all the requirements needed for an Olympic and Paralympic venue.”
Sporting and competition experts – and A MAP THAT WAS DRAWN TO THE WRONG SCALE, so the Park was made to look as if it was nearly twice as big as it is – but no economists. That’s why the Olympics are now costing at least five times as much as the amount stated in the winning bid. ODA/LOCOG have still not conducted a cost-benefit analysis of alternative venues (the KPMG study was not a cost-benefit analysis) but luckily NOGOE has, and hosting the Olympic equestrian events at Windsor would be about fifty million pounds better value for money. See http://www.nogoe2012.com/appendices/2010-01-27-NOGOE-objection-annex-F-socioeconomic.pdf
“we are committed to hosting a ‘compact Games’”
That is a wholly synthetic parameter.
“Tim Stockdale, Show Jumper, and member of the British Equestrian Team, said last November: ‘I am very impressed. I was not aware of the Greenwich Park’s sheer magnificence, tradition and heritage. ”
Tim should get out more. I am not impressed by his ignorance of Greenwich Park. Nor that he – like most of the career-focussed Olympic equestrians – care that Greenwich Park will be trashed by the Olympics.
“Royal Holloway College in Egham would not be a viable accommodation option for Windsor Park because it is already being used to accommodate rowers from Eton Dorney and canoeists from Broxbourne and will be full.”
How about accommodating them at Eton College, then?
“Greenwich Park is significantly better connected with four overground rail stations, the Jubilee line, the DLR and river services.”
But the transport infrastructure can barely cope now and will definitely crack under the strain of an additional 23,000 (stadium) and 75,000 (x-country) audiences travelling in and out every day.
“Windsor Park does not have the infrastructure … There would be a requirement to create significant temporary facilities to host these functions”
Windsor has hotels and serviced apartments.
“The Royal Parks will implement an acid grass restoration and enhancement programme which will be funded by LOCOG. This will improve the quality and extent of the acid grassland in Greenwich Park”
Except it won’t – this has never ever, anywhere, been tried before – there is masses of published research that demonstrates why it won’t work – see http://www.nogoe2012.com/appendices/2010-01-27-NOGOE-objection-annex-D-ecology.pdf – and LOCOG think it is alright to experiment on a World Heritage Site? It isn’t.
Face up to it, LOCOG: your officers have told so many fairy-tales, beginning with the cost of staging the Olympics, the “Olympic Friend-ship” that had to be abandoned, pretending that Greenwich Park needed no more TLC than a golf course, promising a tree survey/tree schedule and then failing to include that in the planning application (although it is an explicit requirement), etc etc, that no one believes anything you say any more unless they can check it for themselves.
The nimby keyboard warriors love this stuff don’t they?
I’m looking forward to the Olympics, the equestrian events and everything else.
The spivs and spin doctors of LOCOG are trying to justify the unjustifiable. What if Greenwich Park couldn’t be used for legal reasons? There must be other venues: where there aren’t severe risks of causing damage to ecology and archaeology such as there would be here in one of the most important heritage sites in the world; or where it would not cause so much social hardship for thousands of people who use this Park frequently. The former would lead to worldwide criticism that a World Heritage Site was allowed to be damaged for sporting reasons; the latter would lead to huge resentment against the sport that is being promoted.
If LOCOG won’t listen to intelligent reasoning, then local democracy must save Greenwich Park – despite Tessa Jowell stating that the decision is made and won’t be changed, and Councillor Fahy and Nick Raynsford stating that this is a “DONE DEAL”. Moreover, although Councillor Alex Grant will not be chairing or taking part in the special Planning Board meeting, he has issued a reminder that planning law forbids councillors from voting on applications on political grounds, and from reaching a firm view in advance of the meeting, and also forbids a political whip being applied to require councillors of any party to vote either for or against any application.
All the independent expert evidence is for planning approval not be granted (in its current form which is deficient of vital information). So there is hope.
LOCOG have not submitted enough detail to support their planning application – there are many letters to the planning office from bodies who once supported the Greenwich Park Equestrian venue which are now very concerned that LOCOG have failed to describe how the arena will look how they will bring in utilities how they will protect trees . They have failed to submit several surveys including bats, trees and insect life. The partial closures would start next month if they have their way in preparing the cross country course – a 10ft wide 6km ribbon ‘cats cradle’ affecting much of The Park needing to be reserved with rye grass, irrigated, insecticided and fenced off………..their arrogance and assumption that the democratic consultation is a mere formality is breath taking:
Just tell me how they are going to take away the acid grassland soil, replace it with new, fertilise and irrigate it, then take that away and put it all back again, on a course which criss-crosses and winds all over the Park, without fencing it off. Which means that most of the usable spaces of the Park WILL be closed for a very long time, even if the whole Park isn’t. We’ve already had the weasel-worded assurance that the Park will only be totally closed for one day – yet a study of the close-down maps shows that in effect there will be no entry for anyone with dogs or wanting to kick a ball around or ride a bike from 7 July – 4 August.
And another thing – it’s on record that Royal Holloway College have said they have plenty of room – even accommodation with showers for each horse if required.
Royal Holloway College is modelled on a French chateau – it is absolutely enormous and magnificent, and several new accommodation blocks have recently been built.
Here’s the record to which MSFCE on February 2nd, 2010 8:01 pm refers:
“A spokesman for the college said: “We have 2,000 rooms, all of which have been dedicated to the Olympics. They are very classy for students, with double beds and ensuite bathrooms, and we could accommodate the riders and shooters easily if that was what the Olympics wanted.” Unlike in the Stratford Olympic Village, no one at Egham would have to share a room.”
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23587738-dont-be-fooled-by-this-2012-whitewash-boris.do
When LOCOG claims there is not enough room for the equestrians at Royal Holloway, they are quoting one misinformed, 70-year-old, Lord Davies of Oldham speaking in the House of Lords on 2 June 2009.
So LOCOG is deliberately misleading the public, again. OK, LOCOG, give us the next falsehood on your list, oh ye of absolutely no professional integrity.
BRING ON THE GAMES… Can’t wait to get over all this pettiness and make Greenwich proud to host the Equestrian and Pentathlon events!
IT”S SUCH A DONE DEAL… can you imagine ANY council in the right minds turning down such a prestigious event in the borough? I think not!
When can we get tickets?? Anyone know??
Steve, read the planning application. The philistines at LOCOG want to take away an important, irreplaceable WHS and give us back a golf course.
Whatever the merits and demerits of Windsor it is inconceivable that there is no alternative to Greenwich in an equestrian-friendly country such as the UK.
The objections to Greenwich are many and already well publicised.
The tickets will go onsale in 2011:
http://www.london2012.com/visiting/tickets/index.php
MartyMC: no, you will only be able to “pre-register” your interest in buying a ticket: you will be asked to state which of the 26 sports you want to attend and when. Those providing information are not guaranteed tickets, as these will be allocated by ballot, and there will be no preferential treatment for Londoners –
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23797325-request-tickets-for-2012-olympics-online-within-weeks.do
Its absolutely right that riders did not like the going at Windsor. It was always poor, because little was done to cordon off the area and stop the deer poaching the ground which was never rolled it. it was like riding on cobble stones. What riders would have liked was for Windsor’s cross-country course to have even half the amount of money that is being spent on Greenwich’s cross-country track lavished on improving its existing course, which would then be used in perpetuity. The bottom line is that £40 million is beiong thrown away on temporary facilities when a fraction of it could have improved Windsor and Hickstead.
Having a public transport-orientated equestrian spectator Games seems a pretty poor trade-off for the amount of traffic movements that will have to ship all this stuff into Greenwich.
You really do have to wonder if LOCOG ever join up the dots before they put out all this contradictorry bumpf.
In quoting Tim Stockdale LOCOG also misleads. Tim is a top show jumper, which is an arena-based sport. He is not a cross-country rider and would not know what is involved in organising this discipline. Asking him to comment on Greenwich’s suitability for cross-country is about as relevant as asking Roger Federer to assess the suitabilty of Wimbledon Common for rugby. It doesn’t follow that because both sports involve the use of balls, experts in one will know what the other requires. Its the same with horse sport. At these top levels, dressage, show jumping and three-day eventing take place in diferent places (apart from Olympic and world championships) and involve only a handful of cross-over personnel.
The only three-day event rider who has spoken out in favour of Greenwich is Lucy Weigersma who attended the same stage-managed media visit as Tim Stockdale. In independent comments to the media, to date three cross- country riders have expressed misgivings in the media about Greenwich – Zara Phillips (the world champion, no legacy), Clayton Frederwicks (the world silver medallist, no legacy) and Andrew Nicholson who has ridden in innumerable Olympics and world championships (concerns about portable fences).
I also forgot wonder what sort of message LOCOG thinks its trying to put across by saying Greenwich is the only cost-effective venue that can hosts the equestrian Olympics. What sort of budget do they think events like Badminton, Hickstead etc etc work on? Equestrian sport isn’t nearly as rich as people think. Did LOCOG ever ask these existing venue providers for some advice on costs. I bet they didn’t – the truth wouldn’t suit their agenda.
LOCOG maintain they did a proper evaluation of alternative venues but the “evaluation by equestrian experts” involved a mere one-hour each visit to established equestrian sites. Windsor was considered but not actually visited, according to the original BEF evaluation, so it is misleading to say evaluations were made at the time. Certainly, as determined by a request under FOI, there was no cost-benefit analysis done against comparative sites. No responsible or accountable private company would make multi-million pound financial decisions on such flimsy evidence as: close to Olympic Village and iconic status.
A few thoughts:
1) The document you link to is certainly not a comprehensive cost–benefit analysis as you claim. And I can’t find any reference to a £50m benefit to hosting the events in Windsor in this or the other supporting documents. Could you detail where that figure comes from?
2) Considering that document was produced in part by a gentleman who appears to have worked for KPMG, I’m surprised and disappointed at the poor quality of some of the analysis. Assumptions used by LOCOG are dismissed as unrealistic based on, at best, anecdotal evidence and invalid comparisons against other events, and at worst, no more evidence than “we don’t agree”. In addition, many clearly irrelevant factors are incorporated. Much is made of threats to local business from sponsorship deals for example. It is suggested that vats swathes of Greenwich will have it’s shop fronts covered up for the course of the Games. Not only is there not evidence to suggest that LOCOG has any such plans but more importantly, even if they do, it is an irrelevance in any comparative analysis against alternative sites. Unless NOGOE are suggesting that this policy would be applied to Greenwich but not to Windsor, any subsequent costs would occur regardless of venue. But of course, the NIMBYs don’t care about Windsor shopkeepers do we?
3) I find it amusing that NOGOE’s supporters are simultaneously arguing that LOCOG’s financials are optimistic and they’ll never sell the number of tickets they suggest (page 9 of the document linked by Indigo) and also that local people won’t be able to get tickets for the events that they are giving up their park for. Which is it? If LOCOGs estimates are exaggerated then surely there’ll be plenty of tickets left for us locals?
5) Finally, I find the tone of some of the arguments on these pages immensely frustrating. It is perfectly reasonable to have concerns about the plans, question them and, if necessary, oppose them entirely. Personally, I’m still concerned about some significant elements. But some people seem to believe that there is some sinister master plan to force through an event that the organiser’s know will be a disaster for local people, the economy and the environment. You’d think that there was some Bond villain sat at LOCOGs headquarters, stroking a white cat and laughing at the good folk of Greenwich. Seriously, can anyone provide a reasonable explanation as to why LOCOG would be going ahead with this plan unless they honestly thought it was going to be a success? What’s in it for them? Is it really that hard to believe that the people at LOCOG have the best intentions? YOu may not agree with them, but to suggest that they are deliberately trying to screw us over is extremely unfair and damaging to the credibility of the cause.
Isn’t this getting over complicated now? Granting planning permission for something because there is allegedly nowhere else for it is not a legitimate planning reason. Chucking it out because it breaches numerous planning policies as set out in the UdP Is. Job done, I”d say.
PLJAIKJ, 4 February 2010 6:54 pm, beat me to it.
LOCOG, stop being so mendacious.
Honesty, professionalism, integrity – give it a try, why don’t you? Why are you at LOCOG running scared of the IOC? Yes, they are probably the most unaccountable organisation in the world but what’s the worst they can do to you?
Blisset is being very naive, in my view, in underestimating the size of the egos running LOCOG and the IOC.
In answer to Blissett’s last points: the decision to use Greenwich Park was fundamentally flawed and LOCOG have been landed with the unenviable task of justifying it and implementing it. I personally have never questioned LOCOG’s goodwill though I strongly support all NOGOE’s arguments against the planning application.
I think it is true to say that many of those who were involved in the initial bid did not think that it would be successful and so were less than scrupulous in framing it: when London beat Paris, contrary to expectations, the result was that they have been hung with their own petard.
no2010.com is the Vancouver equivalent of nogoe2012.com
Similar hubris and “follow the money” – this time it is the indigenous people being rolled over (their native leaders having been nobbled, first, just as our stakeholder “leaders” were) – way over budget – crackdown on homeless – additional CCTV cameras – military anti-terrorism measures include a sort of dirigible parked above the Olympic village – in other news, “The Norwegian Star” that was to serve as a floating hotel has just sunk.