Should Maze Hill station be renamed?

The East Greenwich Cultural Corridor Committee are considering ideas for promoting East Greenwich. Here, Liz Wrigley puts forward the suggestion that Maze Hill station be renamed “East Greenwich station”

The station is very close to the East Greenwich area, and is the most convenient station for both the park and for the University, as well as servicing the shops on Trafalgar Road and other East Greenwich venues. As a mainline station is has a fast, regular service to London Bridge, where you can join the underground easily, get to Charing Cross (by changing platform) and to the south to connect to say Gatwick also by changing platform.

However at present visitors by rail get off, understandably, at Greenwich station (which is nearly half way to Deptford! It is a station that was the Greenwich stop on the original London to Greenwich route, way back in 1838 when this little Kent village first joined with the capital, before the tunnel under the museum and park was made and the route extended east, and has no other significance to its location or name).

No one would guess that Maze Hill is actually much closer to the Greenwich historical town centre attractions.  National Rail travel to here from central London is now on the oyster card system so you do not even need a separate ticket.

We are looking at a long term strategy to bring East Greenwich onto the mental map of the rest of London and the world, as at present it is overlooked, being just beyond the east edge of the World Heritage area, a place where at present maps may as well say ‘there be dragons here’.

In summary, the station is:

• close to the park, with a park entrance very near
• close to the Maritime Museum
• close to the river Thames,
• close to the town centre markets

Liz Wrigley
Planning  / Urban Design Consultant
East Greenwich Cultural Corridor Committee

What do you think? Would it be beneficial to East Greenwich if Maze Hill station was renamed? Have your say in the comments below.

London 2012 Is Listening

November 2009 has, for a long time, been a date etched in my mind as this is the month the London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games makes its planning application submission. So it’s a good moment to reflect on the enormous amount of detailed work that’s been done on the use of the Park as a venue for Olympic Equestrian and Modern Pentathlon and the Paralympic Dressage competitions in 2012.

For more than a year now we’ve talked to local residents and consulted with Greenwich Council, The Royal Parks, English Heritage, Natural England and other key organisations. We’ve listened to the many things residents have said and points raised and, where possible, adapted our plans accordingly.

We know, for example, many residents expressed their concern about how The Flower Garden and The Children’s Playground would be affected by events in 2012 and about Park closures.
Having considered these issues we’ve altered the Cross Country course so it now only runs through the northern part of The Flower Garden avoiding any flower beds and the pond. The remainder of The Flower Garden will remain open to the public except for the day of the Cross Country competition which is, provisionally, 31 July 2012.

Similarly, following feedback from residents, The Children’s Playground will now be placed outside the secure perimeter of the Games which means it too will remain open apart from the day of the Cross Country event. We’re also in discussions about upgrading the Playground after the Games.
On the issue of Park closure we’ve reduced this to around four weeks. We cannot give absolute guarantees at this stage because of security assessments and other considerations, but this is our aim.

We’ve also heard the concerns raised over traffic congestion and the question of resident and business access. As a result plans for the Olympic Route Network (ORN) have been adapted to minimise the impact. Even if a road is ‘designated’ as part of the ORN it does not mean it will automatically be closed. Residents and business owners will have access to their homes and properties and there are no planned residential road closures.

In addition we have moved the venue entrance to the National Maritime Museum side of Romney Road instead of the Old Royal Naval College so ensuring Romney Road is no longer within the venue perimeter. This means the Old Royal Naval College will remain accessible to the public during the Games. Circus Field in Blackheath will be used as an operational compound to avoid the need for large vehicle access to the Park. This will cause less disruption and impact to the Park itself.

We know Greenwich Park is a site of unique historical, environmental and archaeological significance and important to local residents and users. And we are committed to ensuring the Park is returned in the condition we receive it. We will not be cutting down any trees in the Park. There may be some minor pruning but this will be carried out in full consultation with The Royal Parks.

We are also working on our legacy plans with the British Equestrian Federation and Greenwich Council which includes the development of an equestrian centre in the Borough.

We hope the changes we have made so far show how important residents’ views are to us and how we will continue to listen. On our dedicated website, www.london2012.com/greenwichparkconsultation we’ve answered some key questions and cleared up some of the misinformation around the proposed use of the Park. There’s also an opportunity for you to tell us what you think through our online ‘Feedback’ forms. Please do fill this form in because your views are important to us.

Or you could come and visit us at 8 College Approach from Wednesday 28th October until Saturday 31st October 2009 where you can see our plans in detail and give us feedback in person.
We look forward to seeing you there.

Tim Hadaway is the London 2012 Organising Committee’s Sport Competition Manager for equestrian events at the London 2012 Olympic Games.

Nick Raynsford: The Challenge of Regenerating Greenwich

Greenwich is a place of paradox – at the same time very familiar and yet unknown. Mention Greenwich to people living elsewhere in Britain or indeed overseas, and it will almost always strike a light. The home of time, site of the Prime Meridian, location of some of the country’s finest baroque architecture, the magnificent Royal Park with its unparalleled views over London. These are just some of the characteristics that make Greenwich world famous.

But much of the locality remains largely unknown beyond the Borough boundaries. The acres of formerly derelict land on the Greenwich Peninsula might until recently have been part of a different planet. The terraces of housing in East Greenwich nestling at the bottom of the Blackheath escarpment are equally unfamiliar. And traveling east towards Charlton, the swathe of retail and commercial buildings lying between the Anti-Gallican Pub and the river – once the historic ropewalk, so redolent of Greenwich’s naval history – are as anonymous as similar sheds in countless other cities.

When I was first elected MP for the area in 1992 another paradox of Greenwich was brought home to me brutally by an event which shocked the country. The murder of Stephen Lawrence just across the constituency boundary in Eltham, but very much part of the Borough, was a savage reminder of the problems confronting the area. Greenwich had suffered more than most parts of London from the collapse of the traditional heavy industries that had once provided the area’s economic bedrock. In the atmosphere of decline and despair that appeared endemic at that time, it was hardly surprising if racism and inter-communal conflicts reared their ugly heads.

It taught me early on in my time as an MP, the importance of bringing investment, economic development and regeneration activity that would not only create new jobs, but build aspiration, skills and hope. Transport was clearly critical. The shortage of efficient and reliable links to central London and across the river was a major obstacle to new investment. The arrival of the Jubilee line, the DLR and a long overdue riverbus service has begun to redress the balance. Better bus links and easier interchange between different transport modes as oystercard is extended to surface trains will also help. So too will continuing improvement in the reliability and frequency of South-Eastern train services.

But if improved accessibility is vital, so too is the replacement of the largely defunct 19th century industrial base with employers likely to thrive in the very different economic climate of the early 21st Century. Creative industries are an obvious example, with strong links to higher education. So the arrival of Trinity and Laban, the University of Greenwich on the old Royal Naval College site, Ravensbourne College and the O2 on the Peninsula have made and will continue to make a very significant impact on the local economy as well as the area’s cultural vitality.

Another paradox has been tourism. While Greenwich is internationally renowned, it has not realized the full economic benefit of that fame. Most visitors come as ‘day trippers’ admiring Greenwich but returning mainly to central London in the evenings, where the great bulk of their spending also takes place. Yet Greenwich is a beautiful place to stay, and local businesses would benefit from more overnight visitors, so the development of a wider range of hotels is also vital to the area’s long-term economic strength.

The key to successful regeneration is effecting change while protecting and preserving the best from the past. In Greenwich more than almost anywhere else on earth that is the challenge to which we must rise.

A donation was made to the Greenwich Association of Disabled People in lieu of payment for this article.

Platform: The Olympic Threat To Greenwich Park

“Platform” is our new magazine strand where contributors make the case on an issue they care about. This first article has been compiled by Sev D’Souza from NØGØE (No to Greenwich Olympic Equestrian Events).

I am a committee member of NØGØE ( No to Greenwich Olympic Equestrian Events) and I am writing to ask your readers to join over 2300 others in signing an e-petition opposing the use of Greenwich Park. They can visit our website where there is a link to the petition. Now’s a good time to apply pressure because the Olympic Board is reviewing the original decision following a review by KPMG, whose terms of reference are secret but are unlikely to have included damage assessments.

NØGØE was dismissed as an alarmist group representing a tiny minority but, after the publication of a poll in the Evening Standard on 24 October showing that 51% of respondents were against the use of Greenwich Park, we feel we are now representing the concerns of a growing majority of Londoners.

NØGØE was formed by members of various local amenity societies who felt that more active opposition, rather than co-operation, was needed to stop the decision to use the Park. A whole team has worked together and put considerable thought and research into our case for opposition, which we would like to share with your readers. We are against the use of the Park on the basis of size, damage, disruption and legacy. Before we outline our case, it is worth examining how this decision was taken.

The Process

Through Freedom of Information we have found out that the decision to use the Park was based on the scenic backdrop, the proximity to the Olympic Village, and to promote riding in urban London. No cost benefit analysis was done on the Park or any other venue. The organisers (LOCOG) over-estimated the capacity of the Park by having a plan for the bid that was not drawn to scale. Would any accountable business take a multi million pound decision on such a basis? (Figures of £12m and £20m have been mentioned for using Greenwich Park). LOCOG are privately funded to stage the Games, but any losses are underwritten by the Government, so it is in tax payer’s interests for costs to be minimised and revenue maximised (for example 250,000 people can attend cross country riding in Badminton, about 5 times more than in the Park). LOCOG are holding consultations on 15, 20 and 29 November. Check their website for details, then please go along and ask “Seb & Co” some searching questions.

Size

A revised plan of the cross country course has now been published, and three points stand out: first, only about 25% of the course covers the lower half of the Park, so the famous backdrop looking towards Canary Wharf will have very little exposure; and secondly, the space is so tight that it will probably limit horse movements and spectator numbers, and also impact on the space needed for temporary structures and equipment,and indeed probably affect evacuation in the event of an emergency of any kind; and thirdly, the limited space for stabling will mean that horse transportation will probably have to be done in stages with resultant impact on congestion of local roads.

Damage

It has been 3 years since the bid was won, and yet there appear to be no impact assessments of environment, built heritage or historic landscape available, and timing is very tight if a move is to be considered. LOCOG state that there was no damage to the course in Hong Kong but, without getting too technical, comparisons between a man-made golf course and a sensitive heritage site are spurious. In HK millions were spent on digging up the track and turfing with a tough, hoof-resistant grass; this can’t be done in the Park mainly because of the trees and the archaeology. We have walked the proposed x-c course and made the following observations:

1. It is possible that mature trees may be cut down. We could not see how it would be possible to avoid cutting down quite a large number of the smaller trees, maybe about 20, perhaps more. The lower branches of a large number of trees, in particular mature trees, are likely to be lopped off. Damage to tree roots is also a possibility. Will vulnerable trees be fenced off as protection against unsupervised sub-contractors?

2. Running the course through the flower garden could risk damage to many cedar trees. It was not clear from the map whether the course would actually go through the lake in the flower garden but, even if not, might this have an effect on the water fowl and other wildlife? The stag beetles are an endangered species and the tawny owls (protected by law) could be affected by floodlighting.

3.The position and type of fences are not shown on the plan. It is fairly obvious that these need to be positioned well away from trees since they will have to be secured into the ground.

4. The course goes right over one of the Saxon barrows which is south of the path

5. It goes straight through the ridge and furrow remains of medieval cultivation south of the bandstand. Will additional earth be used for levelling off, thus affecting the topography?

6. By running alongside the wall from the flower garden northwards it runs the risk of unearthing more Roman remains if the ground should be muddy. It is customary for an archaeologist to be present if ground surface is penetrated. Will the organisers take measures for safeguarding archaeological material? Recent material was found a few inches below the surface and the Park, already with 76 archaeological features, is growing in importance as a heritage site.

7.Horse manure will destroy the acid grasslands and the related wild flowers and wildlife at a time when the Government is committed to increasing bio-diversity in London.

8. The track itself is likely to be damaged, especially if wet, by 75 horses galloping through over a 4 hour period.

9. Will there be a cast iron assurance that dedicated trees will not be moved? And, if dedicated benches have to be moved, will relatives be notified so as not to cause distress?

10. There is a risk that the Government could breach undertakings made to UNESCO regarding environmental conservation and protection; and thus endanger the Park’s WHS status.

In a letter full of weasel phrases from Jackie Brock-Doyle of LOCOG, she states that “damage will be minimised”. That’s an acknowledgement that there will be damage. Surely any damage to a world heritage site is unacceptable for the sake of a sporting event. We would rather take note of David Starkey’s assertion in the Evening Standard (24 October) that the Park will be damaged by this event and the Times leader (25 August) suggesting “irreparable damage”. Hugh Robertson MP is also “concerned”, and so is Boris Johnson, who thinks (report in London Lite 31 October) that significant damage may be caused.

Disruption

There are three aspects of concern, relating to construction, closures and logistics.

First, the construction of the arena in front of the Queen’s House: With a 23000 capacity( 83% that of Charlton Athletic’s Valley) this is a major building project which raises many problems/questions:

1. The IOC have very particular standards for the dressage and jumping surfaces and in Hong Kong ground levellers were used to improve land drainage. There might also be a requirement for very high, “Broadcast Quality” floodlighting, the mountings for which in HK were driven into the ground. There will need to be quite a number of power generators (41 in HK), cabling, restaurants, toilet facilities, hospitality areas etc. Also in HK there were 311 temporary structures, including a VIP viewing gallery.

2. Where will stabling for all the horses be located, and how will the odour, ventilation, waste disposal and sewage affect the area if additional tunnelling and drainage is required?

3. The horses, riders, support teams – vets, nutritionists, farriers, trainers, grooms and their supplies – including vast quantities of water – will require accommodation plus acclimatisation areas, warm-up and cool down areas – including stretches to canter and gallop. Will these be located in the Park?

4. The large transportation boxes for the horses – where will these be accommodated and how will they enter and leave the park?

5. During construction of the arena, what measures will be taken to protect residents from noise and inconvenience?

6. How will local residents be protected from the arena noise – PA system, leisure and filming helicopters and other intrusions?

7. Main roads are likely to be closed for weeks; severe parking restrictions might be applied for residents and visitors; and one lane of the Blackwall Tunnel is likely to be closed for all but the “Olympic Family” during events.

Secondly, Park closures: Once again the LOCOG letter stated that “talk of months of closures are not accurate”. Yet later at the AGM of Greenwich Society LOCOG confirmed that building of the arena would commence in April 2012. With the Paralympics ending in September, it means that the bottom end of the Park could be closed for 7 months. This is the most popular part of the Park, with school trips and sports days during the week, and thousands of visitors at the weekend. These people tend to arrive by public transport and spend money in the town. They won’t necessarily go to the top end of the Park and, if they stay away, it might impact on the local economy for 28 weekends.

Closures will also affect the Flower Garden during preparation of the course and the event itself. This area is where mothers and babies congregate, and hundreds of children come to feed the squirrels and ducks, and see the deer. To deprive local people access to this valuable ‘countryside in the town’ is unacceptable.

Thirdly, the logistics: Imagine the construction traffic along the congested Trafalgar Road, not to mention the horse boxes, the equipment and support services. Then consider the 23000 spectators coming by train and DLR putting further strain on the transport system. No one knows how many spectators will line the x-c route (20,000?). What’s clear is that the disruption will be unfair to Park users and a nightmare for a densely populated neighbourhood. It is madness to hold such a major event in an urban park that is a ‘lung’ for congested SE London.

Legacy

In choosing Greenwich Park, there is an attempt to promote equestrianism in an urban environment. However, if by now ordinary people in towns have not taken up the sport, there are probably very good reasons – space, stabling and cost. Both Greenwich Council and Nick Raynsford MP have stated that free riding lessons for under-privileged and disadvantaged kids would be a wonderful legacy. Such a legacy is probably not sustainable. Anyway there is no evidence that winning in elite sports inspires grassroots participation. Indeed a Chinese equestrian competitor has stated in the official Beijing Olympics website that cost will deter people from taking up riding as a sport. Back home, the Chairman of a House of Commons Public Audit Committee stated that, “if young people don’t take it up because they don’t see public school boys and girls (who make up 80% of medal winners) as role models, there is effectively no legacy – just wasted money”.

Conclusion

It appears that financial and environmental impact assessments were not carried out before Greenwich Park was chosen. LOCOG say that final plans will be submitted for planning permission in Autumn 2009. What if it’s then too late to change venues despite confirmation of negative impacts? There are indications to suggest that this is a ‘done deal’; that opposition is futile; and that ‘consultations’ are to listen to concerns, not to review decisions made, however un-democratically they were taken. We hope that, through heightened public awareness of the problems, pressure can be brought to have this decision reversed.

Now is the time to change this outrageous decision. The extensive Park closures are an imposition on ordinary people without gardens, and for thousands for whom it is a “Green Gym”. The impact from months of disruption from traffic congestion and construction work is disproportionate for an event lasting a few days. Also importantly, there is a risk of irreparable damage to the fabric of the Park. Greenwich Council base their support for using the Park on “assurances secured from LOCOG” (GT 5 November). But why believe them before an Environmental Impact Assessment? In terms of legacy, the only real one could be the loss of diversity, and damage to the ecology, topography and archaeology of the Park.

NØGØE’s plea to the Olympics Board is: Just to be close to the Olympic Village, and for pretty TV pictures to please the sponsors, equestrian federations and the IOC, don’t risk going down in history as the people who trashed Greenwich Park.

What do you think about Sev’s article? Use the comments feature to add your thoughts, or if you think you can write your own article to feature in the new Platform section, please get in touch.