The planning application to use Greenwich Park at London 2012 will be decided by a meeting of the Council’s Planning Board on March 23rd.
Council planning officers have recommended to councillors that they support the controversial proposals.
If permission is granted, work will begin in Spring 2010 to prepare the Cross Country course. A test event will begin setting up in June 2011 and will be removed by August 2011.
Setting up of the actual event will begin in March 2012. The majority of the park will be closed for public access from 6th July to 3rd August 2012, with only the Children’s Playground and parts of the Flower Garden remaining open during that four week period.
Removal of equipment and structures associated with the games will take place between September – October 2012, with a reinstatement programme beginning in November 2012. The estimated date for the completion of the restoration/replacement of large areas of acid grassland is 2015.
The planning application has received the support – ranging from the enthusiastic to the conditional – of Fédération Equestre Internationale (FEI), the London Borough of Lewisham, British Grooms Association, Pentathlon GB, British Equestrian Federation (BEF), Maritime Greenwich World Heritage Site Executive Group, National Maritime Museum, Greenwich Foundation for the Old Royal Naval College, Royal Parks, CABE and English Heritage.
It was opposed by the British Archaelogical Trust, the Blackheath Society and Garden History Society. The Woodland Trust and Friends of Greenwich Park were opposed to the Cross Country element of the plan.
The Greenwich Society urged the council to treat this only as outline permission. No to Greenwich Olympic Equestrian Events (NOGOE) submitted a petition of 13,000 signatures opposed.
2,099 individual letters were received by the Council in response to the planning application – 36 in support and 2,063 objections.
Local campaigners, NOGOE, had hoped that the Metropolitan Commons Act 1866 would prevent the Council giving permission for the Blackheath Circus Field to be used, thus scuppering the whole proposal, but council officials have batted away this complaint, saying the restrictions cited applied only to the historic “Commissioners” of the land.
They say “the functions of the Commissioners have not devolved to the Council. Accordingly, the section imposes no restraint upon the power of the Council to determine the planning application in accordance with the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.”
The meeting will take place at the Town Hall in Woolwich on March 23rd at 7pm 6.30pm and is open to members of the public.
Rob, LOCOG’s planning applications are also opposed by The Society for the Protection of Urban Green Space, and ICOMOS UK (whose parent body, the International Council of Monuments and Sites, is advisor to UNESCO who designated Greenwich a World Heritage Site in 1997).
Thanks for the additional info, Indigo. I was going through the report last night and felt sure I’d miss something!
The meeting starts at 6.30pm not 7pm
Thanks Paul – corrected.
Now that I have started to read the paperwork for the Planning Board, I would like to point out that saying “Council planning officers have recommended to councillors that they support the controversial proposals” is a bit misleading.
There is a mile of conditions that LOCOG has to fulfil first, see section 3.2-3.4 (10 pages of it). Eg no work can start until a Site Reinstatement Plan (with financial guarantees and implementation timetable) has been agreed.
Cooooeeeeee, councillors – they’ve had, what, nearly five years and for all practical purposes an unlimited budget, and yet today LOCOG still don’t know where the bat roosts are in the Park (see page 141). LOCOG still require a European Protected Species (EPS) Licence from Natural England. This Licence (for which they have to know where the roosts are) cannot be applied for until the relevant planning permission has been granted, and development works cannot commence until such a Licence has been granted.
This is relevant to the Council’s UDP Section D3 and Policy O22.
There seems to be a pork pie on page 123, “No veteran trees are proposed to be pruned”. At first glance at the tree map and schedule, I thought that it was clear that at least two veteran trees stand in the way of the x-country course.
Stag beetles: I believe that LOCOG’s interpretation of the EU Habitats Directive Annex II implications is wrong. The stag beetle is a protected species across the EU.
Indigo, please, please, please hush now. We’ve heard enough. We KNOW how much you care about the beetles. We KNOW how much you care about the bats.
Shush. Shhhh.
You’re putting off everyone who agrees that the park is an unsuitable venue for this event.
Take a breath. Go to the meeting and make your point. But please, again, for the love of all that’s holy, shut up.
Really.
Shhhhhh.
Switch off your computer now. You know you can do it. Come on….thaaaat’s it.
Hush now.
If I might be so bold as to upset Wolfe and speak a word in support of Indigo; well done Indigo for obviously taking the time and effort to go through the tedious paperwork and highlight the areas of contention. Of the 13,000 signatures of opposition submitted by NOGOE, I wonder how many have put the same effort into reviewing the planning application as Indigo has? I am one of the people who believes that the park is an unsuitable venue for the equestrian event and far from being put off by Indigo’s comments, as claimed by Wolfe, I believe these comments will strengthen the resolve of those who oppose the plans and help to bring further clarity to the opposition campaign.
I find Wolfe’s attempt to ‘Shhhhhh’ Indigo patronising, juvenile and unrepresentative of many of those who oppose the proposed use of Greenwich Park.
It’s a good job that people like Indigo are exposing the inadequacies of this planning submission, and I hope that the Planning Board read these observations before taking a balanced decision on the 23rd.
The Environment Statement contained selected and limited surveys. These downplayed any adverse impact and exaggerated any benefits. Much is made of the regenerative benefits from these events but, if the price to pay is accidental damage to trees or loss of heritage features, this is disproportionate and unreasonable.
I have counted some 40 conditions that have been placed on any permission being granted. This is ridiculous; the applicant should have been told to go away and come back with crucial information (eg on stadium construction) before the application could be considered. What happens if one of the conditions is not met 6 months down the line? Would the juggernaut be stopped then?
As the pressure to deliver intensifies, LOCOG would use “operational reasons”
to do as they please. I wouldn’t trust LOCOG not to ruin Greenwich Park.
I would rather trust a politician.
Thank you Indigo for all your investigation – it i very much valued. There is are some odd admissions by LOCOG re their Bat Survey – that the wrong times of sunrise & sunset were typographical errors – were they usingthe same typist who submitted the Park map to the wrong scale in the initial submission ? – apparently that was a ‘typo’ too…and the misleading artist’s impressions of the stadium? (both of them) when LOCOG could so easily have shown something closer to the real scheme when they ‘consulted’ the public?
With all this talk of digging up the park etc.. does anybody know who will be doing the digging yet? I assume LOCOG will not be driving the bulldozers themselves… Do we know when they will start and exactly what they will be doing? the planning statement is very long and i couldnt decipher exactly who what doing what and when!
You’re right, Simon, there is a distinct lack of crucial information in this application. This is not a proper submission and should be thrown out.
Just had the Lib Dem flyer through the letter box. In it, Lucy Mortimer, Greenwich West campaigner says she is determined to see that the plans for equestrian events in Greenwich Park for the 2012 Olympics are closely monitored and controlled.
Good luck Lucy, how exactly are you going to do that?