BUILDING work got under way last week on Greenwich Park’s Blackheath Gate.
Work was required on the gate to allow large vehicles through for the staging of London 2012, and park bosses say they are using this as an opportunity to carry out “improvements” that have been “needed for some time”.
The new configuration of the gate will be set back within the park by almost four metres, which Royal Parks say will make it easier for lorries to turn at the roundabout in front of the entrance and also make it safer for cyclists exiting the park.
Brick piers that formed part of the gate have been demolished but Royal Parks say only one of them retained its original bricks – dating back to 1885 – and they will be kept for use on future repairs to St Mary’s Gate. Royal Parks also say that all of the original Portland stone cornice and plinths are being salvaged, repaired and reused.
Graham Dear, The Royal Parks manager of Greenwich Park, commented:
“The work we are undertaking will make improvements to the layout of the junction and have been needed for some time, and although some disruption will be caused the end result will mean improvements for all users of the park. The current gates date from a time when the only traffic was pedestrian, cyclists and horse. They do not meet the needs for today’s vehicular traffic. The gates are not wide enough and they are regularly damaged. There have been many accidents involving cyclists. The new design will make the junction safer.
“The new design approved by English Heritage and Greenwich Borough Council is sympathetic to the feel of the park and the wonderful vista through the park that they help frame. An archaeologist is present throughout the demolition and ground-works for the project and we will also be trying to reuse as much of the current materials used in the gates as part of the construction.”
While the works continue, expected to be until early April, vehicles can only access the park via the Blackheath entrance and have to exit via St Mary’s Gate.
Planning permission to re-position the gate, which requires the felling of a horse chestnut tree, was granted by Greenwich Council’s Planning Board last month.
Image of how new gate is expected to look.
“Royal Parks say only one of them retained its original bricks – dating back to 1885 – and they will be kept for use on future repairs to St Mary’s Gate.”
And English Heritage say that that pier was demolished as well. Lots of photos of the pile of rubble – when the contractors used power-tools instead of hand-tools, in breach of the planning condition – on
http://www.flickr.com/photos/save_greenwich_park/sets/72157629256525471/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/greenwich_park/6851557251/in/photostream
http://www.flickr.com/photos/greenwich_park/6796213931/in/photostream/
They’d struggle to re-use the 19th Century bricks for repairs on St Mary’s gate if they *hadn’t* deomlished that pier as well, wouldn’t they?
You can only reuse the bricks if you have dismantled the pier with hand-tools – which was a planning condition set by the Council. But the contractors demolished everything with breaker drills. I doubt that even one brick survived that.
Under cover of the Olympics, The Royal Parks are getting permanently wider gates for big truck access to Greenwich Park, so it can be hired out frequently for large commercial events. They are disingenuous about this like everything else.
1. LOCOG have lied about the trees, the archaeology, the grasslands, and the scale of the disruption to local people and the local economy. Their so-called ‘guarantees’ about Greenwich Park are not guarantees at all, because they refuse to answer questions.
2. LOCOG simply ignore inconvenient laws and regulations. For instance they are irresponsibly risking 60,000 people in Greenwich Park when the Fire Regulations stipulate a maximum of 15,000.
3. LOCOG have also ignored ICOMOS UK, the independent experts on World Heritage Sites, as well as the tree experts from the National Trust and Ancient Tree Forum, and internationally renowned archaeological experts like Harvey Sheldon. LOCOG’s so-called Advisory Group are not independent.
The overwhelming majority of local people want the Olympic Equestrian Event moved from Greenwich Park. There is still no difficulty about transferring the event to a purpose-built 3-Day Event course like Bury Farm Estate, and this has happened to the equestrian event at four recent Olympics.
They are moving some victorian gates. They appear to be doing so more sympathetically than, say, the mess they’ve just made for the John Roan temporary school on Royal Hill. Who exactly has lied? WHere is the evidence for this?
And, for instance, we get that silly old story about the park only being licensed for 15,000 people. WHere is the evidence for this? And the story about local people being against the Olympics, which refers once again to you and your mates – where is the evidence for this?.
If your arguments were more rational, and less Chicken Little, people would take more notice.
Rob –
The three dimensional image that you’ve used at the bottom of the story is the OLD design, which was revised as a result of consultations with local preservation and amenity societies. The final, approved design can be found here:
http://onlineplanning.greenwich.gov.uk/acolnet/documents/44927_10.pdf
As you will see this has the two higher piers outside the vehicle gates and a less obtrusive central gate, which is much more elegant in my view than either the previous gates or the initial proposal for their replacements.
You can read more about the role of the local societies in improving the design here:
http://www.greenwichsociety.org.uk/News/Blackheath-Gate/
Indigo –
Do you really believe that the Royal Parks manager would stand there with his hand in his pockets saying nothing as these precious bricks were ‘demolished’ – right in front of his office?
These comments really smack of desperation, grasping at the final straws to try to provoke outrage and thus mobilise local opinion against the Olympics – despite the fact that your endless misinformation and scaremongering campaigns have failed to achieve that objective over the past several years.
Ed
I’m really disappointed that you posted this comment. You know for a fact that the second point isn’t true. Once again, I will quote from the Royal Parks’ submission to the Application for the Discharge of Conditions which was approved by the Planning Board on 26 January 2012:
“The Royal Parks are conscious that capacity has been a concern for some people and that this has been perhaps heightened through misinformation. Apparently the Royal Parks was quoted as stating that the capacity of the Park is around 15,000. This figure is erroneous and has never been given as the capacity of the Park. The only events where these sorts of numbers were given were for a film and a food festival that occurred on two separate occasions on a section of the Bandstand Field.”
Moreover, why do you insist that the Royal Parks authority are intent on hiring out the Park “frequently for large commercial events”? Have you uncovered a conspiracy between Royal Parks and the Royal Borough of Greenwich to commercialise the Park – perhaps to sell it to Disney to build a theme park? Or perhaps sell it to Wimpey to build 20,000 starter homes? Or even to lease the entire Park to AEG Live to hold non-stop, 24-hour-a-day outdoor rock concerts? If so, please do share your evidence with us!
Seriously, Ed, what kind of hubris do you have to have to believe that you know or care more about the Park than the Royal Parks authority, and the managers of Greenwich Park in particular?
Finally, you have no evidence for your repeated assertion that “the overwhelming majority of local people want the Olympic Equestrian Event moved from Greenwich Park.”
The fact is that NOGOE has lied about the real risks posed by the Olympics, about “overwhelming local opinion,” and now about the replacement of the Blackheath Gate. And NOGOE continues to lie about these issues.
It is not LOCOG who cannot be trusted. It’s NOGOE.
Franklin
1. Evidence about Safety
No independent expert has ever explained how Greenwich Park can safely accommodate an event with 68,000 people, especially when there is a terrorist threat. The figure of 68,000 is LOCOG’s, and has not been professionally backed by the fire service and others. The Royal Parks’ own “Guidelines for Event Organisers 2010” states that the capacity is up to 15,000 and possibly more for “certain events”, like the 2006 film show for up to 19,999 people, which is also the limit spoken of by a previous Park manager. The actual maximum safe capacity could well be less than 15,000, if you bear in mind that:
• Only 3 gates will be open for the Olympics, instead of the normal 9
• Besides a stadium the size of Charlton Athletic’s Valley Ground, the Park will also be full of all the Olympic paraphernalia of stabling, safety zones, jumps, broadcast compounds, cross country course, loos, generators, and all the security fences, lighting, cameras etc. – literally hundreds of pieces of equipment.
• Statements from senior security experts starting with Sir Ian Blair make it clear that we can expect the security threat level for Greenwich Park to rise from ‘severe’ to ‘critical’ for the Olympics.
2. Evidence about public opinion
Professional surveys
The only independent, professional survey was commissioned by the London Assembly in 2009, had a survey base of 12,000, and found that almost 70% of local residents oppose the Olympics in Greenwich Park.
http://www.greenwich.co.uk/andrew-gilligan/1992-huge-majority-oppose-greenwich-olympics/
Other surveys & tests of public opinion
a. Greenwich Council received an unprecedented 2000 letters of protest at the planning application to use Greenwich Park
b. NOGOE presented a petition of 13,500 signatures, plus an e-petition of 3545 to Downing Street.
c. Amenity Societies. Members of the Friends of Greenwich Park and the Blackheath Society voted against using Greenwich Park, and those of the Greenwich & Westcombe Societies voted in favour. These societies’ committees are all in favour.
d. LOCOG’s original survey has not been seriously defended. Andrew Gilligan called it “a level of manipulation to make Kim il-Sung blush, & questions that are “not just leading, but misleading”
http://www.greenwich.co.uk/andrew-gilligan/02399-greenwich-park-olympics-works-will-affect-park-for-five-years/
e. Greenwich 2012. A community straw poll in 2011 on three topics. Hard copy questionnaires and an online survey both about 65% against using Greenwich Park.
3. Evidence for the commercialisation of Greenwich Park
For 500 years of its existence, no commercial activities whatever were allowed in Greenwich Park, until recently the Government started reducing the Royal Parks annual grant, telling them to look for income. The 2010-11 Annual Report says they intend “increased commercial focus” and “increased focus on cost cutting and improved efficiencies”, with 20% fewer staff. As a business whose income comes from events licensed by the local council, “increased commercial focus” means that they intend to hire out Greenwich Park for many large events each year, like Hyde Park. But they need the Olympics to create a precedent because Greenwich Park has always been special, and totally protected.
It will take a few days to have a list of LOCOG’s lies, disinformation and broken promises. If you can also put together your own evidence that NOGOE have been untruthful, then it to be passed on to their committee for a response.
Edward
Yes, LOCOG’s surveys are biased. So are yours. The one Gilligan refers to was self-selecting, and any statistician will tell you it has no significance. It merely says that around 800 people out of 12,000 are sufficiently against the Olympics to return a survey form.
At first, I thought NOGOE were doing a good job. But your latest antics – talking about bio terrorism and now, on Twitter today, equating Irish people with republican terrorism and saying they shouldn’t have work in connection with the olympics – are not only silly and self-defeating, they are also actionable.
Just to agree with what Pedro has said – if NOGOE’s increasingly paranoid rants were not enough to put me off, the anti-irish statements released by them today on Twitter certainly are. You cannot take any organisation seriously that carries on in this way..
Thanks Franklin
“The figure of 68,000 is LOCOG”
Just a note to point out that Locog stated at the January Planning Board and in a subsequent press release that there will be a spectator capacity of 50,000 on cross country day.
Edward
Each of your claims is simply wrong. Whether you are being intentionally misleading or are simply confused is not clear. However, what is clear is that your contribution to the local debate adds a lot of smoke but very little light.
1. Evidence about Danger
Lack of proof of safety is not the same thing as evidence of danger. The Royal Parks have said unequivocally that the figure of 15,000 is “erroneous” and “has never been given as the capacity of the Park.” You have no evidence that 50,000 or 68,000 is unsafe. You know nothing about the “maximum safe capacity” of the Park, regardless of how many gates are open or how much paraphernalia there is about the place.
2. Evidence about Local Opinion
As Pedro has eloquently said, neither LOCOG nor you have objective data about local opinion. None of the “professional surveys” you refer to was based on a random sampling frame where the probability of selection of all Greenwich residents was equal. This leads to fundamental selection bias. These data are more akin to a marketing “survey” – text ‘Yes’ to 6389 if you like our soap! – than a proper public opinion survey.
With regard to the survey that Gilligan refers to: a response rate of 10% is actually very low. This suggests that – at the height NOGOE’s anti-Olympics media profile – local people really weren’t that bothered.
3. Amenity Societies
NOGOE members of the local amenity societies called for Extraordinary General Meetings of all four local societies to vote on resolutions to oppose the Olympics. NOGOE flooded the first two EGMs – the Friends and Blackheath Society – with their supporters. At those meetings NOGOE supporters won the vote and the Friends and Blackheath Societies did initially vote to oppose the holding of the Olympics in the Park.
Members of the Blackheath Society then voted at their next Annual Meeting to overturn the resolution adopted at the EGM, and the Blackheath Society’s position on the Olympics has been ‘constructive engagement’ for several years now.
According to their website, at the Friends’ EGM “our members agreed that the FOGP committee should nevertheless engage with the organisers about the detail of the proposals, so that, if the authorities decided not to remove the Games from Greenwich Park, the views of the Park users could be taken into account in the planning process. The Park, with its stunning location and iconic buildings, is a national treasure that helped win the bid for the Games, and it should be treated as such in accommodating them.”
Aware of events at the Blackheath Society, the Greenwich Society Executive organised a structured debate around the motion posed by NOGOE supporters. After a prolonged and vocal debate, the motion was rejected by an overwhelming proportion of members present. I cannot speak for the Westcombe Society as I am not a member, but I understand a similar process took place there.
I will not comment on your “community straw poll,” which deserves even less credence than the LOCOG or Gilligan-cited marketing ploys.
4. Commercialisation of Greenwich Park
You have used selective citation from the Royal Parks’ Annual Report 2010-11. I’m not going to let you get away with that.
The actual line is backward-looking – it does not refer to their “intentions,” it refers to their activities in the previous year. Quoting in full:
“We have also increased, in a sensitive way, our commercial focus. For example, our Better Buildings Programme saw the Magazine Building in Kensington Gardens being let. The Serpentine Gallery will convert the Grade II-listed former gunpowder depot and flagpole store into an art gallery and exhibition space. We have also converted and let 12 park lodges with the rental income helping to maintain the parks.
In a similar vein, we launched new merchandise and retailing opportunities. This generates income to support the parks without having any impact on the green space.”
No mention of Greenwich Park at all, and no foundation whatsoever for your assertion that this “means they intend to hire out Greenwich Park for many large events each year, like Hyde Park.”
Finally, I think you’ll find that the prohibition on commercial activities in the Royal Parks was lifted by Teresa Jowell while serving as Culture Secretary under Tony Blair, as Simon Jenkins pointed out recently in this rather moaning but nevertheless well-intentioned OpEd in the Evening Standard:
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-24037138-parks-are-meant-to-be-for-pleasure-not-business.do
While I personally would prefer to return to the long-established ban on any commercial activities in the Royal Parks, this might be difficult in these financially straitened times, and I do not think that we should cut the NHS budget or funding to schools to prevent the occasional fashion show in a Royal Park.
Finally, the fact that few commercial activities have taken place in Greenwich Park specifically over the past several years suggests that a sudden and dramatic change in policy – the rapacious commercialisation of the Park – is diminishingly unlikely.
It was the agent who was in charge.
TfL whittled them down.
No one is being anti-Irish, certainly not me
* In the 1970s I did voluntary work at a well-known reconciliation centre in Northern Ireland, at a time when it was still unsafe to be someone with an English accent in Belfast and Derry/Londonderry.
* In my 20 and 30s, for several years, I used to hitch-hike all round and stay at youth hostels in southern Ireland in the summer.
* One summer, I attended a “background to Irish literature” course at University College Galway (staying with a local family).
* Many of my friends have been/are Irish, both from north and south Ireland, and I have stayed with their families/in their homes and they in mine.
* I am of (comparatively recent) Irish descent, on both sides of my family.
The person who holds the patent on the Shotnet seems to have good grounds to believe that LOCOG has commissioned from an Irish company a ballistic screen that infringes their intellectual property rights. This is the rip-off Olympics because LOCOG long ago ran out of money.
Franklin, you are just wrong.
“The Royal Parks have said unequivocally that the figure of 15,000 is “erroneous” and “has never been given as the capacity of the Park.””
Actually it has. You look it up (2006).
“You have no evidence that 50,000 or 68,000 is unsafe. You know nothing about the “maximum safe capacity” of the Park, regardless of how many gates are open or how much paraphernalia there is about the place.”
LOCOG did not consult the London Fire Brigade or the Crown Premises Fire Inspection Group on its premises licence application. This is a condition of a premises licence application. No applicant is ever given their licence if he has not supplied proof from the London Fire Brigade of the maximum safe capacity of his venue. It. Never. Happens. Except with LOCOG.
The evidence for ” the park only being licensed for 15,000 people” is in the Royal Park own guidelines for event organisers in which the figure is not qualified in any way.
Ah, Indigo. Care to explain why you equate “Irish” firms with terrorism then, as demonstrated by your Twitter feed?
Although, in fact, you know it’s anti-Irish, that’s why you’ve attempted to delete the Tweets. Thanks to Darryl at 853 for preserving them so we can see what a strange, unpleasant bunch you are.
Darryl didn’t talk to me about his piece, either before or after publishing it on the web. As a real journalist would have done.
Indigo – real journalists are usually proud enough of their remarks to admit to authorship thereof. If a shrinking violet spouts off in public, as you do regularly, I think you should have the courage to do so too. What are you afraid of Indigo ?
Shall we keep it friendly and stay on the subject of the gate (although I’m not sure there’s much more to say on that at the moment)?
Darryl doesn’t have to speak to anyone before publishing his own opinions on his own site that he set up and produces on his own.
Perhaps if you came across as less angry and bitter and didn’t send him spiteful emails he might be more inclined to talk to you.
I say this as someone who has never met Darryl and knows very little about him.
You comment regularly on a number of local blogs Indigo and I don’t think I have ever read anything positive from you in the two years I have been reading Greenwich/Blackheath area blogs.
And whatever NOGOE have been trying to achieve they are failing miserably through yourself as a spokesperson for them.