Greenwich.co.uk

Greenwich news and information

Speed limit to be cut in Greenwich Park

By

Plans to cut the speed of driving in Greenwich Park have been announced by Margaret Hodge, the Minister for Culture and Tourism.

The speed limit in the park will be reduced from 30mph to 20mph.  The change came as part of a package of regulation changes throughout the Royal Parks which were subject to a public consultation last year.

The new regulations will also allow Private Hire Vehicles into the park for the first time, and also bring parking charges, which have been frozen since 2004, and penalties for non payment into line with Greenwich Council car parks.

Subject to parliamentary approval, the changes are expected to come into force in Spring 2010.

NOGOE to hold public meeting

By

NOGOE – the local pressure group against the use of Greenwich Park for the equestrian events of 2012 – are to hold a public meeting this weekend.

The meeting will be an “open discussion” and you are invited to go along and “have you say”. NOGOE say that the meeting will be “the one that LOCOG never held”.

Local councillors and planning officers have been invited to the meeting which will take place at the John Roan School (Maze Hill site) on Sunday (17th) afternoon from 2pm to 4pm.  The phone number for any enquiries about attending is  020 8853 2567.

Nick Raynsford – Nobody Likes a Bad Loser

By

WHEN you’re in an argument with someone, there are two clear signs that they’re losing. The first is when they resort to abuse – and the second is when they have to distort your case to buttress their own.

In their battle to knock down Greenwich Market, Nick Raynsford MP, the Greenwich Society and the forces of development did both those things – and did, indeed, lose. So it’s rather encouraging to see them reprising exactly the same tactics over the Greenwich Park Olympics.

In an article for this website last week, Mr Raynsford accused Nogoe, the anti-Olympics group, of “scaremongering” and a “complete misrepresentation of the facts.” His evidence? A poster they issued, with a picture of the open area in front of the National Maritime Museum, and beneath it the statement that “this will be a no go area in 2012 for several months.”

It is actually Mr Raynsford who is distorting the facts here. As last week’s planning application confirms, the area depicted in Nogoe’s poster will indeed be closed – for eight months.

Mr Raynsford attacks Nogoe for “continuing to perpetuate the myth that the park would be closed in a BBC report in October this year, when a spokeswoman said it would be ‘socially and morally wrong’ for the park to be closed, despite knowing that this would not be the case.”

The actual BBC report quotes Nogoe’s spokeswoman as saying that it would be socially and morally wrong to close the park during the games. And as last week’s planning application confirms, it will indeed be closed during the games.

The outline facts of the Park’s closure are actually quite uncontested. They have been established everywhere outside the mind of Nick Raynsford for more than a year now. And what the further details published last week show is that, far from “scaremongering,” Nogoe have significantly understated the problems the Olympics will cause.

Forty-two thousand vehicle movements in the park, including more than 6,000 lorry movements; five years of works, starting next spring; the park sliced up with fences for most if not all of that time; full restoration of the park only in 2015. And the more I pore through the planning documents, the more horrors emerge – details to follow.

What other distortions have the pro-Games forces been guilty of? Mr Raynsford describes one survey showing an improbable 85% support for the Games as “independent polling.” Actually, it was a voodoo poll. It was market research, not done to the standards of a professional opinion pollster. It was carried out for Locog, and it was packed with questions so comically loaded that 85% must in fact have been a very disappointing result.

Locog, in another of last week’s ripostes, claimed that “all work related to the Games will be completed by November 2012,” other than the acid grass restoration programme by 2015. Not true: the “amenity grassland” across much of the park will be fenced off until spring 2013.

They also say that the extent of tree pruning will be “minimal” and “routine.” I think the trees which will suffer a “removal of branches to the main stem” might quarrel with that.

In this debate and others Nick Raynsford, in particular, is in danger of becoming ridiculous. Not long ago, he was quoted as saying that he had “no doubt” that the redevelopment of Greenwich Market would succeed on appeal and would be built. The proposal was in breach of so many council and Government planning policies, and its rejection by councillors was so comprehensive, that it in fact seems rather unlikely to win an appeal, or to be built in its current form.

Economics have also turned against the development. At the same meeting that councillors refused the market redevelopment, centred around a huge new hotel, they approved a large new hotel on Greenwich High Road. They’re also currently considering another hotel proposal – the conversion of the upper floors of the Trafalgar pub. So any new hotel in the market now faces even greater challenges to its commercial viability.

Mr Raynsford’s instinct for distortion was also on hand over the market, with a claim that opponents had said Turnpin Lane would be destroyed. Nobody had said anything of the sort, of course. In psychoanalysis, this sort of behaviour is known as “Freudian projection” – when you project on to others the faults and flaws you sense in yourself.

Mr Raynsford may be able to inhabit his own private fantasy world for the majority of the parliamentary term. But with no more than six months before he must face his voters, it seems a rather unwise place for him to be at the moment.

LOCOG Respond to Andrew Gilligan

By

LOCOG have issued the following statement to Greenwich.co.uk in response to Andrew Gilligan’s latest article.

LOCOG believes that Greenwich Park will be a stunning venue for the Equestrian and Modern Pentathlon events in 2012. We take our responsibilities very seriously and our planning application shows the detailed work we have carried out on all aspects of our plans for Greenwich Park. We will make sure that we return the Park in the condition in which we receive it, and we have fully involved The Royal Parks and English Heritage in the development of all studies and plans.

Closure of areas of the Park

  • The majority of the Park will remain open until July 2012.
  • There will be some scheduled closure of the north end of the Park for the Test Event but this will re-open afterwards. Installation of the temporary arena is estimated to begin in April 2012.
  • We have listened to people’s concerns and have reduced the time of full closure for the Park from six to four weeks, from 6 July to 3 August 2012.
  • The Children’s Playground, the Deer Park and the majority of the Flower Garden will remain open throughout, apart from the one day that the Cross Country event will take place.
  • The Park will not start closing from February 2010. 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. It will have little impact on visitors to the Park who will still be able to access all areas freely, except for a narrow strip of ground in certain places.
  • We are clear in our Planning Application (Environmental Statement: Section 3.2. Table 3.2 – Indicative programme and extent of public access) that all works related to the Games will be completed by November 2012, other than the Acid Grass Restoration and Enhancement programme which is due for completion in 2015. The amenity grass affected by our activity in the Park will be reinstated within six months.
  • The Acid Grassland Restoration and Enhancement programme is a substantial three-year programme to improve the quality and extent of the acid grassland within the Park. This is a long-term programme to improve significantly the amount and quality of the acid grasslands in the Park, thus improving the Park’s ecology and offering a real legacy benefit.  This is fully supported by The Royal Parks.
    Lorry and vehicle movements
  • For planning purposes we have assessed the number of lorry movements on the basis of the maximum upper limit we may need to use.
  • 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.
  • The Environmental Statement Non Technical Summary page 17 states that “Given the relatively low daily vehicle flows involved it is considered that vehicular traffic associated with the set up and removal of the event facilities would have an insignificant effect.  A maximum of seven lorry movements per hour is predicted which is anticipated to have no noticeable impact on the operation of the highway network.”
  • As a construction project in London, we anticipate that a Traffic Management Plan will be a condition of planning approval. This will ensure that affected local residents are kept informed and that measures are taken to minimise the impact of traffic movements. For example, minimising movement at sensitive times of the day and dispersing them throughout the week.
  • We have already said that there will be no residential road closures and Romney Road will remain open.

Heritage impact

  • 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.
  • If we find anything during our work in the Park we will, of course, preserve and protect it. We will be guided at all times by the appropriate authorities.

Visual impact and trees

  • 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.
  • No trees will be removed. All trees will be protected in accordance with BS 5837:2005 Trees in relation to construction. A full Tree Protection Plan will be put into effect in partnership with The Royal Parks.
  • Some minor tree pruning is unavoidable but it will be undertaken on a case by case basis with input from an arboriculturist accustomed to working in historic landscapes and in partnership with The Royal Parks. The extent of this pruning is minimal, the majority involving just branch tips, and arboricultural experts have confirmed that the proposed work poses no threat.
  • Minor pruning of this nature takes place routinely as part of The Royal Parks’ normal maintenance programmes.

Legacy

  • The Environmental Statement states that ‘The extent to which legacy benefits are generated by the Greenwich Park Events rather than the 2012 Games as a whole is not clear’. The Environment Statement is part of a formal planning application and as such is required to use quantifiable methodology.
  • We are not surprised, three years out from the Games, that this scientific data is not available. We have always said that hosting the Olympic and Paralympic Games in Greenwich provides a legacy of increased global profile for the Borough and inspiration for its residents, and will bring sport  to new audiences across the Borough and London. We fully recognise that it will take years to quantify the legacy effects of hosting the Games.
  • Nevertheless, the Statement, written by independent planning specialists, clearly identifies that ‘Greenwich Council is actively promoting a range of sports activities and programmes using the 2012 Games to inspire local children and residents to  become more active. The Council is also working with a number of sports governing bodies which are holding events in Greenwich in 2012 to develop opportunities to create meaningful long-term benefits’. This activity and investment has been driven by hosting the Games.
  • Greenwich Council is also working with the British Equestrian Federation’s HOOF project to develop a riding school for the borough, potentially at a site on Shooters Hill.
  • LOCOG is also in discussion with The Royal Parks about leaving behind a permanent legacy feature in Greenwich Park, such as an upgrade to the Children’s Playground. In addition to this, working in partnership with The Royal Parks, we will deliver on 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.
  • The Borough of Greenwich has also already benefited from an £80 million investment in the Docklands Light Railway to extend the line to Woolwich and increase carriage provision by 55 carriages.

Public support

  • We have no interest in ‘rigging’ figures. The research referred to was conducted independently for LOCOG by The Nielsen Research Company. Nielsen is one of the largest research companies in the world. The research complies fully with the MRS code of conduct.
  • The 81% figure in the Evening Standard poll referred to is not a specific figure representing the residents of Greenwich. The research that LOCOG commissioned was directed at local residents and was aimed at understanding their local feelings. These two polls therefore are not comparable.
  • These figures and the methodology of the Nielson survey are robust. They demonstrate the wide support for the Games in Greenwich, subject to certain conditions which we are fulfilling – specifically, closure lasting no more than six weeks and no long-term damage to the Park.

Andrew Gilligan: Greenwich Park Olympics Works Will Affect Park for Five Years

By

GREENWICH Park will not be fully restored to its current state after the Olympics until 2015, the planning application documents, published on the council’s website on Tuesday, show.

Areas of the park will be closed off from February or March 2010, meaning that the park has less than four months of full public access left. The total duration of the Olympic-related works and closures in the Park will be five years. The total duration of the events themselves is two weeks.

The length of the work period, far in excess of expectations, is one of a number of very unpleasant shocks from the planning application documents. The principal document, the Environmental Statement volume 1 (ES), is downloadable in two parts from this document list

(it is about three-quarters of the way down the list of documents). References which follow are to ES paragraph numbers, except where indicated.

Lorry and vehicle movements

Construction and removal of the main 23,00-seat showjumping arena will create an estimated 6,420 lorry movements to the park – an average of 43 to 58 per day .(ES 3.4.17). This phase will close large parts of the park for a total of eight months in 2012, from April to November inclusive (ES 3.2).

Other items of plant in the park will include 160-tonne mobile cranes, 5 tonne mini-excavators, bulldozers and JCBs (ES 3.4.23).

The events themselves will create 35,960 vehicle movements by competitors, officials and media to the park, an average of 625 a day. (ES 3.4.32). The park will be almost completely closed for four weeks (ES 3.3.7) and largely closed for longer.

Heritage impact (archaeology, historic buildings, etc.)

The overall permanent impact on the park’s heritage features is assessed as “likely to be neutral to slightly adverse” and the ES admits that some heritage features could suffer permanent “loss or partial loss.” (ES introduction, page 10).

Most features, it is claimed, will be protected by mitigation (protective structures and the like). But “as a last resort,” some heritage features will be “preserv[ed] by record,” ie permanently destroyed, but only after pictures and records have been made of them. (ES introduction, page 10).

A set of ornate gates into the park will be removed to allow vehicle access, although it is promised that they will be replaced afterwards.

Visual impact and trees

The park will be surrounded by a 9-foot-high metal security fence, with spotlights every 80 feet and CCTV cameras on 16-foot poles every 250 feet. There will be a similar, inner fence cordoning off other areas. (ES 3.2.32-3.)

The ground in the open area in front of the Maritime Museum, which currently slopes slightly, will be made level, with topsoil potentially needing to be stripped to a depth of 1.3 feet. “Retaining structures” may have to be installed in the soil in this area. (ES 3.2.2-9.)

Seventy-two trees will be pruned to allow a 11-foot clearance for horses to pass underneath, including a “small number” which will suffer “removal of branches to the main stem.” The majority of pruning would be to branches of 25mm or less,
although a number would be up to but not more than 50mm. (ES 12.6.9).

There will be temporary power plants, water and fuel tank compounds (ES 3.2.52-5). Temprary ducts will be dug across the park to divert some existing gas, water and sewage mains pipes which currently pass under areas needed for the competition (ES 3.2.61).

“On balance, the overall magnitude of change is considered to be
medium adverse resulting in a moderate adverse effect.” (ES 12.6.14)

Closures

The closures are contained in the “indicative programme” on pages 27-30 of the ES (the pages are confusingly numbered in a separate sequence from the introduction.) They show that there will be two and a half years of “advance grass management works” from spring 2010 to summer 2012 to “create a safe riding surface” along the cross-country course.

During this time the course would be fenced off, although gaps would be left to allow park users to get through. (ES 3.4.3- 13.)

The works on the cross-country course will involve installing a “covered and above ground” irrigation system. The soil would also be loosened by driving large spiked rollers across it, The spikes would be up to 12cm long. Fertilisers and herbicides would be applied and the course would be seeded with ryegrass from March 2010 onwards. (ES 3.4.3- 13.)

The acid grassland in the park would need until 2015 to recover and would probably be fenced off during that time. The amenity grassland would be fenced off until spring 2013. (ES pages 27-30).

Legacy

Torpedoing the best PR efforts of Locog and Greenwich council in one fell swoop, the ES admits: “The extent to which legacy benefits are generated by the Greenwich Park Events rather than the 2012 Games as a whole is not clear. The Greenwich Park Events will be showcasing sports not widely practiced in London.” (ES 14.6.42.)

Public support

In a separate report on community consultation, Locog claims that a telephone survey of a thousand Greenwich residents produced a figure of 84.8% in favour of the Games taking place in Greenwich. (The thousand were residents of Greenwich borough, not necessarily the town – only 139 of them lived near the park.)

The figure seems rather implausible because it is actually higher than the same survey’s figure for the number of Greenwich residents (81%) who support the Games happening in London at all.

Nor is the 81% figure at all consistent with the latest opinion poll, for the Evening Standard, which shows support for the Olympics running at less than 60% of Londoners as a whole.

Close examination of the methodology of the survey reveals how the figures were rigged. The key question people were asked was a leading one. The exact question is not quoted, but according to the report of the survey, in Appendix 18 of this document, [http://www.london2012.com/greenwich-park/documents/report-on-community-engagement/locog-report-on-community-engagement-v19-with-apps-1-.pdf ] it was along the lines of “Are you in favour of Greenwich Park hosting the games, provided that the whole park will be closed for a period of up to six weeks, no permanent damage will be done and considering the economic and social benefits?”

This question is not just leading – against the rules of all professional opinion pollsters – but is actually misleading, since it is far from clear that there will be any economic and social benefits from this particular aspect of the Olympics.

Not content with that, however, participants in the survey were softened up first. Before being asked the key question, they were asked to agree or disagree with a series of preliminary statements designed to get them in a favourable frame of mind, such as: “The Royal Parks does a good job at protecting and managing Greenwich Park,” “I believe that the Royal Parks will ensure that Greenwich Park will be returned to perfect condition with no permanent damage after the Games,” and “I don’t think that the Royal Parks would allow any event to take place that would cause lasting damage to the Park.”

No doubt the 85% figure will be much quoted in the weeks ahead. But it is of a level of manipulation to make Kim il-Sung blush.

More details to follow after I’ve had a chance to read through the whole 1800-odd pages.

The “bogus claims” of Olympic protestors and the “cult of personality” at Greenwich Time – Nick Raynsford Interview pt 2

By

As I walk into Nick Raynsford’s Westminster office, he begins  to tell me about a meeting that he has just had at Greenwich Park.

He talks at length about the benefits he believes the equestrian events will bring from a “new feature” in the children’s playground to a “restructuring” of the Blackheath gate. He also talks about the wider economic development that he believes the games will bring to the town.

But while he is obviously enthusiastic about holding the Equestrian events here in Greenwich, it is striking how dismissive he is of those who oppose them:

“The problem with the NOGOE campaign is that they have not been prepared to listen to any evidence at all. They have their own preset view that this is going to be a disaster. They don’t want it, they don’t like it and they won’t listen to any evidence. That I’m afraid discredits them in the eyes of most rational people and observers”

Raynsford believes that opponents of the events have deliberately been spreading false information about it:

“I have to say that those people who have been campaigning against it have used in my view some extremely bogus claims and made some very dishonest statements that have actually caused alarm and concern to people who genuinely love the park

“And these claims are completely groundless. The claims that trees were going to be cut down in large numbers, that the ground would be destroyed and all churned up and giving the impression that this is some sort of Grand National type event when it is literally seventy horses, on one day, doing one circuit, and that’s it.”

Raynsford also believes that Olympic organisers failed to communicate their plans to the public until recently. He says that LOCOG “let their eye off the ball” in the early stages and “were not as responsive as they should have been” to objectors.

But despite this, he still believes that there is strong enthusiasm for the Olympics in the town:

“The overwhelming majority of young people in the area are wholly supportive, and the interesting thing about this is that there is quite a split between those who have been most vocal against the Olympics who tend to be older, and those under 55, who are in my experience overwhelmingly supportive.”

Yet while he believes that the “overwhelming majority” of young people are “wholly supportive” he is dismissive of a recent survey carried out by Conservative Assembly member Gareth Bacon showing significant opposition to the equestrian events:

“That was completely unscientific and politically motivated and frankly I do not regard it as serious and it is trying to use this for political purposes and I think that is very unprincipled. I think the right approach here has to be to engage seriously with LOCOG and the Royal Parks Agency, which are the two agencies best able to judge how this can be managed and then to listen to their views.”

Throughout our conversation I am struck by the relative weight he places on the views of officers, experts and agencies against those of politicians and campaigners.

I wonder whether this is a result of his extensive work outside parliament in the private sector.  Does this work interfere with his main role as a constituency MP?

“I think that parliament would be a very much weaker place if MPs didn’t have outside interests. My interests are all in the area I have worked throughout my professional life, so it’s housing, it’s construction, regeneration, that sort of area where I have quite a lot of expertise. I ran a consultancy before I was elected so this is not doing something new and it’s certainly not cashing in on ministerial experience which is one of the other allegations that is made. It’s simply pursuing expertise that I have had as a result of my professional career which I think makes me a better MP to comment on what is happening here at Westminster. So in debates on regeneration housing and construction I can usually give a pretty informed view and without sounding too immodest it does usually command a certain amount of respect rather than just partisan responses.”

I ask him how many days a week he spends in Greenwich. He says that he spends “at least one” to which he adds

“I tend to work around a 70-80 hour week and I’m quite confident if anyone looked at the hours I spend they would see that I spend at least 55 hours a week on parliamentary or constituency business, so the outside work is not interfering with that.”

There is little doubt that Raynsford is closely involved in local politics and on the morning of our interview I spot him on page three of the council’s newspaper Greenwich Time.

In the picture, he is standing alongside Labour Councillor Peter Brooks, celebrating the acceptance of Oyster Cards on Thames Clippers.

I ask him how he can justify appearing in a publication that many people believe is just “electioneering on the rates”

“I think it is important that the council does have a mechanism to communicate but I think it does have to be very careful how it uses that. I took with a pinch of salt some of the criticisms that were voiced about this being party propaganda because it came to a head when the Evening Standard was running an absolutely vitriolic campaign against Ken Livingstone and I think that what is sauce for the goose, is sauce for the gander”

Yet in my copy of Greenwich Time I also find reams of advertising for local businesses, a feature on Leona Lewis and even a TV guide. Isn’t this deliberately designed to weaken independent newspapers in the area?

“I think there is a general problem for local newspapers across the country irrespective of whether there are aggressive local council newspapers as well, so I don’t think it is entirely fair to say that the problems facing the News Shopper and the Mercury are simply the fault of Greenwich Time. I think it is a wider problem. I do think we have to have diversity and I’m a strong believer in keeping viable local newspapers and I would certainly not want to see Greenwich Time replacing them as the only voice locally.”

But what about all the non-council related content in Greenwich Time? How can the council justify that?

“I don’t know enough about, I haven’t spoken to Peter Cordwell the editor about his reasons for doing that. My prime concern is that this should be a means of communication between the council and local people.”

But if it is just about communicating with constituents, why have  there been so many front page pictures of Council leader Chris Roberts in recent months?

“I am not myself a great believer in the cult of personality and you will not see many photos of me in Greenwich Time” he replies rather uneasily. “I don’t seek publicity in that form.”

Read part three of the interview tomorrow and find out why Nick Raynsford thinks Ken Livingstone should not stand for London Mayor in 2012.

Missed part one of the interview? Read it here