Greenwich Park in November.
Olympic Organisers Hold Public Meeting
LOCOG held a public meeting on Thursday to answer questions regarding the use of Greenwich Park as an Olympic venue for 2012. The meeting was attended by LOCOG Chief Exec, Paul Deighton, and LOCOG Chair, Lord Sebastian Coe.
Deighton told the meeting – held at Indig02, part of the O2 Arena – that LOCOG are “making provision so that the park is restored to how it was in the first place.”.
The next phase of the LOCOG consulation will be an exhibition from Monday to Friday this week at the Greenwich Tourist Information Centre at 46 Greenwich Church Street.
Useful Links:
Excellent summary of the meeting at the 853 blog.
Evening Standard’s report on the meeting.
Daily Photo 30/11/08: Looking Across Greenwich Park
Daily Photo 28/11/08: Royal Parks Sweeper Vehicle
Equestrian Events To Stay At Greenwich Park
London 2012’s Olympic Board has issued a statement confirming that it will not be making changes to the staging of the Equestrian and Modern Pentathlon events which are due to take place in Greenwich Park. The decision comes after they received the findings of KPMG’s review in to the Olympic venues.
The statement says:
* None of the alternatives identified by LOCOG and considered by KPMG are in a location which is close enough to accommodate the Modern Pentathlon show jumping event which needs to be located close to the Olympic Park to allow the completion of all five events within one day;
* Any move away from Greenwich would therefore result in a doubling up of facilities with the need to build a separate Modern Pentathlon show-jumping facility close to the Olympic Park;
* In addition, all of the alternative venues would also require the funding of additional accommodation as they are not within IOC guidelines for travel time from the Olympic Village;
* Given these considerations, an alternative location for equestrian and modern pentathlon would not result in lower costs than Greenwich Park.
Useful Links
KPMG’s Intellectually Suspect Olympic Site Review
Find out more directly from the 2012 Organisers
Straight From The Horse’s Mouth
Friday 21st November & Saturday 22nd November, Pavillion Tea Rooms, Greenwich Park
This coming Friday and Saturday, LOCOG are going to be available in the Pavillion Tea Rooms in Greenwich Park to discuss their plans for the park at the London 2012 Olympics. Get there between 10am and 4pm to see what they have to say about the staging of the Equestrian events and the Modern Pentathlon.
KPMG’s Intellectually Suspect Olympic Site Review
OPENING my Financial Times yesterday, I saw a full-page advert from the accountants KPMG: “Helping you succeed in turbulent times.” How very appropriate!
For it is KPMG who are doing their level best to help the London Olympic organisers succeed in ramming through their deeply risky proposal to hold the 2012 equestrian events in Greenwich Park – a plan which has certainly caused an awful lot of turbulence locally.
In August, KPMG were appointed to review Greenwich, and another local venue, the proposed Olympic shooting ground at Woolwich Barracks, amid growing concern that they would cost a fortune, provide no legacy, and would, in Greenwich’s case, risk terrible damage to our precious World Heritage Site park.
I have to confess that I was cynical at the time, privately believing the review to be no more than an attempt to validate decisions already taken. But I didn’t say so. I thought I’d give KPMG a chance and see whether they produced a serious piece of work that genuinely tried to review the issues, genuinely investigated the costs and benefits of moving the venues and genuinely approached the subject with an open mind.
Yesterday, my paper, the Standard, published extracts from a leaked email written by the Mayor, Boris Johnson, which summarised the KPMG review’s conclusions – and made quite clear that everyone’s worst fears about the study were true. This is indeed, it seems, one of those exercises where they decide the answer before they even start – and then work out how they’re going to justify it.
At least from the summary of the conclusions in that leaked email, the justification is so tortuous, the liberties taken with the truth so great, as to render this report one of the more intellectually suspect pieces of work I’ve seen (and I did read the Hutton Inquiry.)
KPMG’s key reason, in Boris’s words, for rejecting alternative venues (Windsor Great Park or Badminton, say), was that “Greenwich would be the cheapest option because any out-of-London venue would require provision of a satellite village for competitors.”
In fact, the 2012 Games already have eight out-of-London venues, in five sports – and none of them is being given a purpose-built satellite village. They’re using existing buildings (such as, you know, hotels, and student halls of residence) – and instead of paying through the nose to build an entire Olympic village from scratch, they’re just paying two weeks’ rent to the owners of said hotels and halls.
It would thus actually save vast amounts of taxpayers’ money to move the shooters and riders outside London, because we wouldn’t need to build the Olympic village as big.
But as I discovered, KPMG rejected Badminton and Windsor as too expensive and generally unsuitable without even visiting them, or indeed even (as both venues confirmed to me) talking to them.
That wasn’t the only thing they didn’t do. They didn’t talk to anyone in Greenwich or Woolwich, including the council, the local amenity groups, or Michael Goldman’s NOGOE, which opposes the use of the park. They didn’t talk to any of the three national sporting federations whose sports will take place in Greenwich and Woolwich. They didn’t speak to the landowner, the Royal Parks.
Most of all, they didn’t make any kind of examination of the environmental and ecological impact of the proposals – in other words, they completely ignored the main grounds on which so many are objecting to the use of the park!
What work did KPMG actually do, then? Ah, that’s a little more difficult. Even their full terms of reference are not public for reasons of “commercial confidentiality.” And the cost figures they used? Alas, these too have to remain secret, said the Olympics Minister, Tessa Jowell, this week, for the same reason.
Other questionable claims in the KPMG conclusions are that security and transport at alternative venues will cost more. But both Greenwich and any out-of-London alternative would be stand-alone, outside the general ring of security on the Olympic Park, and thus security requirements would be similar.
Greenwich Park does have railings around it, but temporary security fencing is also likely to be required by the IOC, as it was at the 2008 Olympics in Hong Kong. On this basis, fencing a venue in the middle of the countryside would certainly cost no more than fencing Greenwich Park, and probably less, since access for construction will be easier.
The need for guards and patrols will also be greater for a venue in the middle of a heavily-populated inner city area with a high crime rate. Satellite stabling areas outside the park will also need to be secured, whereas at, say, Windsor all the stabling could be together.
Securing Woolwich, which is in the middle of a public common and is partly open on one side, will be vastly more expensive than securing the proposed alternative, Bisley – which because of its year-round role as a shooting centre is already one of the country’s most secure sporting venues. The existing security fence at Bisley was deemed perfectly adequate for the Commonwealth Games.
KPMG also claimed that transport costs would be greater for any alternative venues. Again, probably untrue, depending on the alternative venue and the distance from it to the athletes’ accommodation.
If the equestrianism was held at Windsor Great Park, and the shooting at Bisley, the accommodation would be at Royal Holloway College at Egham (where the Olympic rowers are already scheduled to go, and there is ample space for shooters and riders). From the Great Park to Egham is about half the distance from Greenwich to the Olympic Village, and on far less congested roads. From Bisley to Egham is only slightly further than from Woolwich to Stratford.
Finally, KPMG said that Greenwich would have to stay because there would still need to be a modern pentathlon showjumping arena constructed in London. This is true, but a red herring. The riding part of the modern pentathlon does need to be in London to be near the other four sports which make up the event. But a pentathlon riding arena is far simpler and cheaper than an equestrian one, reflecting the fact that the entire horse part of the pentathlon takes just three hours over the whole Games (90 minutes each for men and women.)
Next year’s modern pentathlon World Championships – a “class A” event equivalent to the Olympics – are being held in the athletics stadium at Crystal Palace at a total cost to the taxpayer (for all five events, not just the riding) of £660,000.
Part of me feels depressed at the shamelessness of KPMG’s claims – and not least at the fact that, according to the leaked email, they do seem to have convinced Boris to drop his pressure for changing the venues. The Mayor also seems to have been convinced from the experience of this year’s Olympic horse events in Hong Kong that there would be little damage to the park. But the Olympic cross-country venue was a private golf course, quite different from the densely-packed, historic and public place that is Greenwich Park.
No doubt this will lead to a further round of claims by Olympic spinners that Greenwich Park is a “done deal” and it is time for everyone to fall into line. But another part of me feels encouraged. It shows the true case for Greenwich is so weak that they can only make it by making it up. If Locog expect this report to settle any arguments, they will, I fear, be disappointed.
Click here for the full text of the leaked email.
Daily Photo 14/11/08: Corner Of Greenwich Park
Daily Photo 12/11/08: Flower Gardens
Yesterday, I met up with Dave Hill from the Guardian to talk about the 2012 Olympics. We paid particular interest to the proposed route of the Cross Country course through the Flower Gardens, so today seems a good day for this picture of the Flower Gardens entrance.
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.