Comments on: LOCOG Respond to Andrew Gilligan

By: PLJAIKJ

PLJAIKJ — Sun, 13 Dec 2009 21:28:48 +0000

Dear LOCOG
Have I got this right?
1. You want to close parts of Greenwich Park for prep and rep for 5 years, and fence off the cross country track for 2.5 years, which will cause disruption for joggers, games players, walkers, children and dogs?
2. You will leave parts of the Park with stronger and better looking grass. What use would this be except for, God forbid, another equestrian event?
3. You now admit that heritage features could suffer loss, after giving assurances to the local amenity societies and our local MP, who staked his reputation on them, that the Park would be returned to its previous condition; and that there would be no damage? Do you want to go down in history as the people who trashed Greenwich Park?
4. You say that irrigation will commence in spring 2010 which would put at risk the acid grasses and archaeology.
5. You are basing your case on mitigation of risk (when what is required is elimination of risk) with no guarantees that accidents won’t happen during construction? Why should we trust you?
6. You make light of the lorry movements (you say 3200 for 26 weeks; what about course preparation outside this period? Was Andrew Gilligan wrong to quote 6200 lorry movements?) but to put this in context: for the Sammy Ofer Wing, a major project for NMM, only 2500 vehicle movements will be required.
7. You say your survey was fair but why won’t you publish the questionnaire so that the public can see that it wasn’t designed to elicit a positive finding?
8. Could your chairman not be more condescending when he says he knows how much the people of Greenwich love their park? Does he not know that Greenwich Park is owned by the nation and belongs to the world? This is the same man who told the BBC last week that it is wasteful to build temporary facilities.
9. It will cost £42 million to stage these events in the Park (according to Evening Standard 09/12/09) although last March a leading economist suggested to you that using existing venues (including a local venue for the modern pentathlon) would cost under £10 million and, according to the owners, Hickstead was offered free: (http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/hickstead-for-equestrian-events-olympics-2012.html). This would have left a meaningful legacy. Being private and unaccountable, your company can waste money but your plan to use the Park is morally bankrupt, since it denies ordinary people, many without gardens, access for a month to the only practical green space for miles; and also you risk damaging dedicated trees and benches to the distress of relatives.
10. You are implying that the DLR upgrade would not have happened were it not for the events in Greenwich Park?
11. The BEF is proposing a riding school on Shooters Hill, although there are 4 riding schools within easy reach, to promote urban riding. How affordable will this be and how sustainable would any subsidy be?
12. Your competition manager, Tim Hadaway, who was part of the team that recommended Greenwich Park in 2004, said on Radio 4 last friday in response to the alleged unlawful use of Blackheath Circus Fields, “Our lawyers are dealing with the permission and they don’t foresee a problem”. You were clearly unaware of the Metropolitan Commons Act 1866, which required you to obtain permission to use BEFORE your submission for planning application.
13. You say you won’t close any roads but are you not overlooking the inadequate road infrastructure, which means the events will cause massive disruption to daily life?
14. You say the events will bring economic and social benefits. This is debatable but, in any case, won’t these happen wherever the events take place? They’re not justification for risking the nation’s heritage.

AND ALL THIS JUST SO THAT YOU CAN SHOWCASE A MINORITY SPORT AND ACHIEVE A COMPACT GAMES OBJECTIVE?

By: Jan Stewer

Jan Stewer — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 09:54:33 +0000

‘The extent to which legacy benefits are generated by the Greenwich Park Events rather than the 2012 Games as a whole is not clear…….We are not surprised, three years out from the Games, that this scientific data is not available” – Neither are we surprised you are saying you are not surprised. You should have carried out this research much earlier – to start work without clear benefits in Spring 2010 is not good enough.

“a permanent legacy feature in Greenwich Park, such as an upgrade to the Children’s Playground. ” – What sort of an ‘Upgrade’? Can you be more specific? Do you mean to extend it to include one of the jumps you want to leave behind but can’t build IN the play park because you have promised not to close it?? It is quite a nice play park and none of the regulars have been crying out for an ‘Upgrade’

“The proposed perimeter security fence will run inside the existing perimeter wall for the Park. The majority of it will not be seen from outside the Park. Lighting for CCTV will be very low level”…. – You may not know this as you are not familiar with Greenwich Park but there are many trees & shrubs around the Park perimeter which are bound to be damaged even if slightly – this is a PARK not a building site, not a Sports Arena – a PARK .

“Over the next two years, small sections of the Park will be cordoned off to allow ground improvement works to take place. Much of this is similar to the activity that routinely takes place already as part of The Royal Parks’ ground programme, such as mowing and aerating” – Again as people who are not familiar with Greenwich Park you won’t know that the gardeners don’t cordon off areas for mowing or aerating – and also what IS the difference between “Cordoning off” and “Closing” areas of The Park? Both mean ‘No Entry, Do Not Use’

“our commitment not only to reinstate but in fact to leave a larger area of high-grade acid grassland post-Games than currently exists. This is a long-term environmental legacy for Greenwich Park and, of course, requires a period of growing seasons to establish” – oh you DO test people’s levels of credulity!!

“Loss of heritage features, or preserving by record, are references to what might happen if we were to discover any previously unknown historical or archaeological items that the relevant historical or cultural authorities do not want to keep because they are of such low significance to warrant doing anything other than recording them” – What a wonderful PR copywriter you employ to dream up this spin ! You actually intend to STOP digging if you find something of great significance? Won’t that be a bit late?

By: John O'Donnell

John O'Donnell — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 09:28:10 +0000

With the map of the actual cross country course in hand I walked the cross country course on Friday 11th December 2009. I would say that the horses would have to be like the Dyson vacum cleaner able to reach the parts other cleaners cannot reach. Maybe the IOC with help from Locog have developed a new six legged horse , very small, but strong a low centre of gravity and able to turn very quickly and often. i.e the course is very cramped.

With respect to the 6000m by 10m cross country course this will take up a large amount of the available park space , about 10% . I understand that the grass on the cross country course will have to be of a different variety to the existing grass and seeding will take place in spring of 2010 . I imagine this will mean the whole of the 6000m will have to be done together . Also once done it will have to be watered and worked . To protect the grass , since we are told the park will be kept open a fence will have to be erected . This will be a 6000 m fence . I understand from the locog planning application that where the existing paths cross the course they wil be left open to allow us locals to use the park . This fence will be erected in sping 2010 , taken down in 2011 for the test event and erected thereafter and remain until the games .

How will the cricket club function and will this mean the marathon will not be able to use the park in the three years before the games. Lastly to reinstate the park will not be quick , park benches , park signs , rubbish bins , to rebuild paths . This will all take time and who will pay for it . Locog are a private company and have no money, this is what they say, therefore how will they fund the park reinstatement .

By: MSFCE

MSFCE — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 23:30:11 +0000

Deer park open? It never has been yet. I don’t think the deer are going to be very happy. And it’s going to be a bit of a squash fitting all the thousands of people who normally fill the whole Park into part of the flower garden and the children’s playground (both forbidden to dogs, incidentally).

By: D. Seeved

D. Seeved — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 14:17:10 +0000

“On this basis the upper limit of lorries or lorry movements required is estimated as 3,210 over a period of 26 weeks. This is an average of 43 per day and 7 per hour for the 15 weeks of set-up, and an average of 58 per day/9 per hour for the 11 weeks of removal.”

Roughly speaking then, using LOCOG’s own optimistic conjectures, for half a year there will be lorries travelling in and out of the Park every 7.5 minutes. Inevitable congestion and queues will exacerbate traffic and pollution levels throughout the town.

And these thousands of lorry-loads are themselves feeding all manner of stuff into the Park. Of course there’s going to be a huge impact from the deployment of all of these goods.

I started with an open mind, swayed to support of the Games in the Park, but no longer. It’s going to be dreadful. And none of the elected and self-serving protagonists such as Lord Coe are going to be around after the fact to the bear the consequences.

It would be a nice parting gesture by Nick Raynsford if he were actually to make an effort to support the views of his constituents instead of his special construction interests. And it would certainly make a change from his steady stream of feudal pronouncements about how wrong everybody else is.