Through Freedom of Information it was learned that KPMG’s terms of reference were to consider and comment on studies presently being considered by LOCOG. But here’s the rub: through FOI it was also learned that no cost benefit analysis was carried out initially by LOCOG before recommending Greenwich Park. It’s amazing that a £12m decision was taken on criteria such as the need for a compact Games and for competitors to be housed nearby in the Olympic Village. Conveniently Greenwich Park has now become the default choice, and a reference point for financial comparisons with other venues.

The KPMG report suggests that moving the venue would incur additional costs in terms of accommodation, security and transport. If they had done their own research rather than accept what LOCOG said, KPMG might have discovered that, had Windsor Park been considered, accommodation would not need to be built, as Holloway College is 2 miles away and it is close to Eton, where the rowers will be. LOCOG also conveniently state that the riding event of Modern Penthatlon has to be near the Olympic stadium, and that building a second stadium would not make financial sense. True, but why not use an existing sports stadium in East London or West Ham’s ground? LOCOG are deperately trying to justify the unjustifiable.

Also in the report KPMG make the assertion that this will be a wonderful experience for residents of the borough? On what evidence are they basing this?If they made a distinction between the residents who live in the vicinity of the Park and the rest of the borough, and between Park users and non-users, they would get a better understanding of the local opposition.

The KPMG report also states that the Park has received approval from the equestrian federations. This is hard to believe unless the minimum requirements of the FEI, who are equally desperate for their own selfish reasons to retain the Park, are being relaxed. For example: training facilities (no 80m gallop) are inadequate, and the new course, if only 5km, is well below Olympic standard, and this won’t please the competitors. There are also the dangers of using a new untried course with many twists and turns, as the accident recently in the “20/20″ event at Cardiff proved.

What a whitewash!

They selected Greenwich Park without a cost-benefit analysis, and merely for a compact Games. What the organisers didn’t do was to assess the Park in its context: in the middle of a congested, world-famous tourist centre - where any closures will bring the daily lives of people to a grinding halt.

We’re not just talking of road closures. It has been confirmed that the whole Park will be closed for 6 - 7 weeks, depriving children of the playground and cricketers of their pitch; and also excluding daily walkers and joggers; and where will dog walkers go? The lower end of the Park will be closed for 7 months from March to October - so no football for the students and school trips during the week; no weekend sun bathers in this part of the Park that is near public transport and amenities; no green space for people from Deptford and Isle of Dogs who can walk to this part of the Park. Totally out of proportion for 6 days of Olympics with questionable benefits.

Then there are the security aspects: high fencing above the Jacobean walls - with cameras, dogs and floodlighting; the closure of narrow, residential streets that border 3 sides of the Park; the terrorist threat to thousands of residents in a World Heritage Site; the mayhem as 23000+ people spectators walk to the Park through the town centre, obstructing even emergency vehicles from getting through . This information has been confirmed by LOCOG in recent consultations and amounts to disruption on a massive scale. It is unprecedented for a public space to be closed for such a length of time. It is unprecedented for road closures to disrupt daily life on such a scale.

And has anyone quantified the loss to the local economy from all this disruption? The local traders have been hoodwinked into thinking that any loss in visitor numbers will be compensated by extra trade after the Olympics. The Olympics need Greenwich more than Greenwich needs the Olympics.

So, while Greenwich Council supports this event for the sake of local pride, a few contracts and temporary jobs, and free riding lessons for the disadvantaged, we, the residents of Greenwich and users of Greenwich Park, are expected to sit back and watch this nightmare turn into a reality. Or we can object to this undemocratic decision and press for a more suitable venue for the equestrian events.