There will definitely be an impact on biodiversity and archaeology, both short term and long term. But when people think of impacts, they invariably think of negative impacts. There are often numerous positive impacts of projects too.

For example, projects often uncover previously undiscovered archeological remains that, without the project, would never have come to light. For example, 1955 saw a major project in China to harness the Huaihe River. It was accompanied by the discovery of the burial of Marquis Cai. Dating back to the later years of the Spring and Autumn Period (770-476 BC), the tomb turned out to be a treasure trove of ancient bronze-ware. It was to add much to the body of knowledge on the history and culture of the remote days of the Dukedom of Cai. Providing the potential for negative impacts on archeology are well mitigated, we may find that the overall impact could be highly positive.

On the bio-diversity side, acid grassland is the most important habitat on the site. I was not aware of its existence here and thanks to this debate, I’m sure that many other residents are now aware of how lucky they are to have this type of habitat available for them to explore and learn about, (although I appreciate access may be restricted in the run up to the games). There will however, be a short term negative impact to these grasslands and these will require careful mitigation and “environmental compensation”. But in the longer term, the net result will be an increase of up to 2.3ha of high quality acid grassland within Greenwich Park. Also, as a legacy of the games, the grasslands will be scrutinized under a management and monitoring regime, the likes of which they would never have received had the Olympics not chosen the park.

Overall, I am looking forward to the games and wish I get the opportunity to cast my vote in favor.

” Plus i am 100 confident that the park will be fine aftewards.”
Faith is a wonderful thing…

It’s charm like this that does Nick Raynsford’s job for him.

Preparation of the Olympic cross-country course entails excavating the entire length of the course, a “ribbon” 10 yards wide and 18 inches deep, which is then filled in with sand and other stuff to ensure that the “going” for these £0.5m horses travelling at 40mph is smooth as silk. Vertically, the course has to be clear of obstructions (like branches) to a height of about 16 feet (I am writing this from memory but elsewhere I have posted chapter and verse about cross-country course preparation). In Hong Kong, they spent a couple of years preparing the course, and they had a “billiard table” smooth golf course to start with.

Olympic cross-country horses wear massive spiked studs on their hooves, too, to help with traction and staying upright.

“· THE RISK of accidental damage to the bio-diversity features and archaeology of the Park from preparation of the course as well as from the events themselves;”

(Some divots in the grass)

“· THE SOCIAL INJUSTICE of closing the most accessible parts of the Park for 6-8 months and the whole Park for 6-8 weeks;”

(People will have to walk a few hundred metres around a fence)

There are some good reasons to oppose holding the Olympic equestrian events in Greenwich (road closures being one of them) but they just get drowned out by all of the hyperbole about horses falling down hidden holes, and riders tearing through ancient graves etc.

Ever wondered why there are so few trees on the established cross-country courses elsewhere? It is not because the trees won’t grow, or someone thought the courses looked prettier without trees.

Horses see yellow and green shades and in less detail than the human eye, and their field of vision is very narrow. A 1992 study showed that horse vision is not as sharp as human sight. If good human vision is 20/20, a horse rates as 20/60. Details that a person with 20/20 vision can see at 60m are visible to a horse only at 20m. Eg, sometimes a horse can’t distinguish a brown pole lying on the ground from the ground itself.

More crucially, horses’ eyes take longer to adapt to light and dark – eg sunlight and shade under a tree – than eyes of other animals. In a green parkland, on a green or brown course, among green trees, it would be insanely irresponsible to oblige Olympic horses travelling at 65km (40 miles) per hour to have to cope with adjusting and readjusting their eyesight to sunlit open areas and deep dark green shadows thrown by the trees. One cross country jump at the Sydney Olympics constructed in dim shade caused problems and a few falls. A bad fall can result in a horse being put down.

I realise that none of this will make any difference to our MP because (due to his other jobs) he is for the cross-country in the Park come Hell or high water. But other people might like to learn how to discern when LOCOG is being mendacious. Once LOCOG’s construction people are in the Park, and the public are shut out and unable to see what is happening, it will be too late.