Save Greenwich Park from Olympic Equestrian events in 2012 : NOGOE comment

NOGOE comment

6 February 2010 - Hoodwinked - how LOCOG misled the Establishment over Greenwich Park Olympics: With the submission of the Planning Application, the truth is out, LOCOG admit that there will be damage to the ecology and archaeology - public safety issue concerning the underground conduits, which could collapse if provoked by the construction work, spectator movements and the race itself - LOCOG claims to have properly evaluated Windsor (as one of the alternative venues) but they did not even visit Windsor (and the other evaluations involved a mere one-hour visit to each of the other established equestrian sites, according to original BEF evaluation) - people from home and abroad have objected in record numbers - based on soundings from our supporter base, NOGOE expects that the objection count is around 2000, probably a record for Greenwich Council planning applications. Read the NOGOE media release for further details.

1 February 2010 - LOCOG's tree survey only a "desk study" - planning application fails to comply with British Standard BS5837:2005 "Trees in Relation to Construction: Recommendations": It appears that, not only did LOCOG not supply Greenwich Council with a copy of their tree survey (as required, see Section 16 "Trees and Hedges" of the "Town and Country Planning Act 1990 Application for Planning Permission"), and as Greenwich Council specifically requested (see ES Vol 3 Appendix 1C), they appear not to have done one in accordance with BS5837:2005.; Appendix 2A 'Aboricultural survey, constraints and protection measures' states that between May 2008 and October 2009, "Base data was supplied by The Royal Parks from a tree hazard survey including tree positions recorded using GPS equipment to a limited degree of accuracy, tree species, tree age class and basic estimated tree dimensions including tree heights and stem diameters ... Due to the scale of the project and the nature of the structures proposed it was considered sufficient to present approximate tree crown spreads at the constraints phase of the project using geo-referenced aerial photographs ... Trees within ORNC and the NMM were surveyed for the first time for the current project and plotted onto digital Ordinance Survey base maps using geo-referenced aerial photographs and adjacent features only."; A full tree survey has to include a tree schedule but in Appendix 2A, there is only one mention (on page 4) of a tree schedule, where LOCOG claim that "Tree data has been stored within Treework Environmental Practice's database and has been available for consultation during the design phase in the form of a tree schedule and associated Tree Constraints Plan". The tree schedule should have been supplied to Greenwich Council but LOCOG have not done so.; On a tree schedule of Greenwich Park, one would expect to see around 3,000 trees, over 100 of them Listed, and the specimen trees would be clearly recorded. Trees such as the shagbark hickory, one of the largest in the country: The Shagbark Hickory, www.treesforcities.org, an unusual tree, easily noticeable by its rough, shaggy bark. Forming a wonderful focal point as the path splits.

17 January 2010 - NOGOE's Public Meeting to discuss the implications of the planning application: John Hine, NOGOE Coordinator, chaired the meeting and had this to say, " We were delighted to see a packed hall (more than 200 people) for our meeting at John Roan School. The meeting was open to everyone and, contrary to what LOCOG may say, it was clear from questions and comments that the overwhelming majority of local residents are against the use of Greenwich Park for the Olympics"; Maps and key points from the Environment Statement were on display. The risk of damage to this World Heritage Site was the major concern and the audience was shocked by the enormity of the temporary stadium, the fact of having to level the ground, and the loss of this popular focal point of the Park in front of Queens House for 2 years. Also on display was a mock up of what 2.7 metre fencing and lighting around the perimeter would look like.; Apart from a local councillor who talked about the pride of having the biggest event in the world here in Greenwich, a local architect who asked to consider an image of happy smiling children and the benefit for young people, and a lady who referred to educational benefits, the overwhelming majority of public questions and statements referred to the negative impact these Games would have.; Particular areas of concern which were commented on (time did not allow every point to be raised), included:; - Whether it was a done deal (it isn't); - The unlawful use of Circus Field on Blackheath; - A mother who felt there would be no alternative place for her children to play if the whole Park were closed; - It just being a PR event for an elitist sport with no benefit to local people; - A tourist spoke for other tourists in expressing her horror that such an event could be entertained here; - Cutting of grass roots budgets for local sports clubs; - Olympic lanes in the Blackwall Tunnel would lead to traffic congestion in the whole of SE London; - The crowd congestion at local railway stations; - No map of the cross country course in relation to the trees; - The LOCOG survey which over-estimated the level of local support; Several offers of support were received and a number of objection letters signed. It brings the total number of objections which will have been delivered to the Council to date to 497.; You have till 27 January to register your objection.

14 January 2010 - LOCOG Planning Application - NOGOE has filed its preliminary objection with Greenwich Council: Read the preliminary statement letter (.pdf, 220kb) and appendices (.pdf, 396kb) here. If you haven't yet sent in your own views on the LOCOG Planning Application, please do so as soon as possible and no later than 27th January 2010. E-mails should be sent to planningapps@greenwich.gov.uk. Letters should be addressed to Greenwich Council (comments on applications), Planning Department, Crown Building, 5th Floor, 48 Woolwich New Road, London SE18 6HQ (or fax to 020 8921 5442). Please note that e-mails and letters should include the full name and address of the objector. All objections must be received by the Council as soon as possible (but not later than 27th January 2010). It would be very helpful if you could bcc an e-mail objection to reply@nogoe2012.com and simply send/e-mail us a copy of anything sent by post (NOGOE, 17 City Business Centre, Lower Road, London SE16 2XB).; Prematurity of the Applications ... Serious risk of damage to the archaeology and ecology of the Park ... Adverse social and economic consequences (including traffic and transport) ... Opposition of local residents ... Legal obstacles ... Availability of more suitable venues ... No assurance of reinstatement ... Test Event - lack of detail ... Absence of significant legacy

13 January 2010 - the scheme that'll scupper LOCOG's plans: In December NOGOE learnt of the news that LOCOG's proposal to use Circus Field, Blackheath, would be unlawful because erection of their compound is not permitted under the Metropolitan Commons Act 1866 and the Supplemental Act for Blackheath of 1871. When interrogated about this by a DCMS Select Committee, Lord Coe stated that lawyers were working on it to obtain permission.; However retired solicitor, Lionel Lewis, who researched this Act in the Law Society library, noted the reference to a management scheme for Blackheath, which he then located in the Heritage Library at Woolwich Arsenal. The Scheme not only prohibits enclosure generally but limits enclosure by those managing the Heath to the shortest period of time for the purpose only of repair of the grasses.; Further research into the Commons Act of 2006 has revealed that where there is a scheme, such as at Blackheath, there is no means for obtaining any permission to build any fence or structure. Read the rest of the NOGOE press release, .pdf 132kb

8 January 2010 - Greenwich Park Planning Application - 3000 pages but not the right kind of detail: What's most worrying about LOCOG's application is what it doesn't contain ... For this reason, and in order for the public to have their say on the application, NOGOE is holding an OPEN MEETING on Sunday 17 January at 2pm at John Roan School, Maze Hill, Greenwich. Local councillors and planning officers have been invited.; Even though it is possible to assess the enormity and unacceptability of LOCOG's proposals, they are incomplete and many details are omitted - from the precise routing of the cross-country track to the method of construction of the main stadium (three alternatives are presented). They are full of actions that "may" be necessary, actions that will be taken "where" or "if" "possible" or "practicable" and plans "to be developed". Conditions or requirements for subsequent approvals would be meaningless, because it would be almost certainly impossible for anyone to stop the juggernaut at that stage. Read more of the NOGOE press release, .pdf 131kb

11 December 2009, NOGOE's first impressions of LOCOG's planning submission for Greenwich Park and Blackheath Circus Field: LOCOG's economy with the truth is never ending. Anyone reading the environmental impact assessment which accompanies its application for planning permission would realise that its plans are far from complete and that the public is expected to trust LOCOG not to make a mess of the Park. How confident should the public be about that?; Having previously talked about softening the ground through decompaction and reseeding, but not irrigation, although the question was asked, LOCOG now applies for permission to install an underground system - 6 kilometres of irrigation will mean a lot of water going into the Park, it will be particularly harmful to areas which are known to be rich in Roman archaeology, and it will leave lasting effects. Moreover they admit that the acid grasses won't recover till 2015. Read more of the NOGOE press release (.pdf, 106kb).

7 December 2009, LOCOG's plans unlawful: LOCOG is facing a further challenge to its plans to hold the equestrian Olympics in Greenwich Park. According to a recent letter from Neil Rhind MBE, an eminent local historian, and Lionel Lewis, a local solicitor, (both also NOGOE supporters) to the chief executive of the London Borough of Greenwich, Mary Ney, LOCOG's proposed use of about 26 acres of Blackheath common just outside the Park gates, known as Circus Field, would be unlawful. They also say that it would be equally unlawful for the London Borough of Greenwich to entertain LOCOG's application for planning permission to use the land. This is because the enclosure of any part of the Heath (including Circus Field), would be contrary to the Metropolitan Commons Act 1866, which established the concept of metropolitan commons being available at all times for the benefit of members of the public. Read more of the NOGOE press release (.pdf, 140kb).

22 October 2009, LOCOG on the rack press release: "Results of a survey of Greenwich residents carried out by London Assembly member, Gareth Bacon, showed that 68% of respondents were opposed to the Equestrian Olympics in Greenwich Park (see Daily Telegraph, 20/10/09). A similar pattern was observed by NOGOE in their collection of protest signatures outside the Park gates. An analysis of a sample of 13,000 protesters' addresses showed that 80% were from SE1-SE28 and Bromley and Beckenham postcodes, ie many Southeast Londoners don't want these events in Greenwich Park - proving that opposition is NOT down to nimby-ism. Read more of the press release(.pdf 140kb)

3-12 October 2009, letter from Russell Valance published in Private Eye issue 1248

10 September 2009, Brief for Treasury and for Shadow Ministers, September 2009: Cost savings available by moving equestrian events in 2012 Olympics from Greenwich Park: Illustration of the potential cost savings to be made by moving the 2012 equestrian events to a site where there are already some existing facilities and where a positive legacy could be created: totalling around £50 million, including both financial and social costs. Download NOGOE Brief (.pdf 135kb).