Greenwich.co.uk

Greenwich news and information

NOGOE's Media Blitz

By

It was just a few weeks ago that BBC London’s Adrian Warner was reporting that peace had broken out between Locog and local opponents to the plans for the equestrian events in Greenwich Park. But last week there was something of a media blitz from NOGOE, including news that complaints were being lodged with the BBC over that controversial BBC report by Warner.

Elsewhere, a posting on the Save Greenwich Park blog about the threat to the park’s bioversity was picked up in The Wharf newspaper.

Then on Thursday, London Tonight did a report to coincide with the latest visit from IOC inspectors, and spoke to Sev D’Souza from NOGOE and also to the Equestrian Competition Manager for London 2012, Tim Hadaway.

Sev was back again on Friday with an appearance on BBC Radio 4’s You and Yours which reported on the ongoing controversy.

So far from peace having broken out,  it seems this one has a way to run yet and NOGOE are as determined as ever to make their voice heard.

Park Shenanigans (3)

By

Horse on Greenwich ParkIT’S NOT in the same league as Downing Street’s smear emails on Opposition MPs, but damaging untruths are also being spread about the opposition to the London Olympics.

As readers of this column will know, that opposition is at its fiercest over highly controversial plans to hold the Games’ horse events in Greenwich Park. 2012 organisers admit that much of the park, a Unesco world heritage site, will be closed for around ten months and trees will have to be “pruned.” There will be no legacy.

The antis include the Friends of Greenwich Park, the Blackheath Society, the action group Nogoe – and, perhaps most importantly, opposition appears to be growing in the world of Olympic horse sport itself. Last month Zara Phillips, the former world champion, condemned the plans. Only three weeks ago, Clayton Fredericks, the current world champion, said: “I’m with Zara Phillips and many other riders – this site isn’t the right one.”

So it was surprising, last week, when the BBC’s influential London news reported that opponents of the horse events at Greenwich had called a “ceasefire.” The reporter, Adrian Warner, said that “after a year and a half of rowing,” there was now an outbreak of “peace and tranquility,” with opponents “realising that the games are probably going to come.” The BBC website proclaimed: “Horse events venue row resolved” and announced that Greenwich residents had “accepted concessions for hosting the horse events.”

This story has caused great anger in the Nogoe camp, and is now the subject of an official complaint to the BBC. “Nothing has changed,” said a spokesman for Nogoe. “We have not called a ceasefire and we continue to campaign against the horse events every bit as strongly as before. Adrian Warner did not even contact us before he announced to the people of London that we had ended our campaign.”

The campaigners are understandably concerned that their months of pounding the pavements, drumming up support, could have been torpedoed by a report which told tens of thousands of people in Greenwich and Blackheath, quite wrongly, that it was all settled. The supposed concessions, meanwhile, seem less than clear – amounting to little more than some minor re-routing in the flower garden.

Liz Coyle, chair of the Friends of Greenwich Park, was quoted in the BBC report as being “content that [the event] can be fitted in,” something which has always been her personal opinion, but is not the view of her organisation.

Mrs Coyle is on holiday and could not be contacted, but her colleague on the Friends, Clive Corlett, told me: “She certainly said [to the BBC] that the Friends’ position had not changed. We were a bit surprised to see the report. I’m not sure where they got that.”

I’m not sure either – Mr Warner says that since his report is now the subject of an official complaint, he cannot talk about it – but I understand that the BBC man did genuinely believe that the Friends, at least, had softened their position.

Even so, there’s also concern about what one local blogger – himself ex-BBC – called the “astoundingly one-sided” tone of the broadcast, complete with phrases such as “You can’t accuse 2012 of lacking ambition” and the assertion that the horse events will represent “a giant leap for equestrian-kind.”

The line that opposition over Greenwich is “fading” is, of course, one that Locog has been trying to push for months. But then it’s hardly the first time our Olympic masters have resorted to lying to get their own way. Remember when the budget for the Games was supposed to have been £2.4 billion?

The BBC (and Warner), by contrast, have a reasonably good track record of scrutinising Olympic spin. What a shame it would be if that started to change now.

Win "A Year In The Life Of Greenwich Park"

By

A Year in the life of Greenwich Park by Anthony QuineyA Year In The Life of Greenwich Park by Anthony Quiney (published by Frances Lincoln) that tells the story of London’s oldest enclosed Royal Park. The book uses the four seasons to create a narrative of the park through an informative text and top quality pictures.

You’ll learn about the park’s history, its buildings, its views and its trees. For such a recent publication, you may have expected a reference to plans to use the park for London 2012 but it steers clear of controversy.

Quiney himself knows Greenwich well, and was the Professor of Architectural History at the University of Greenwich.

If you love the Park, and frankly who doesnt, this is great coffee table fodder. It’s but Greenwich.co.uk is giving away a copy of the book…

Competition

To win a copy of Anthony Quiney’s A Year In The Life of Greenwich Park, simply answer this question:

What time of the day does Greenwich Park open to pedestrians?

Email your answer to rob@greenwich.co.uk. Closing date for entries is 1pm on Thursday 16th April. Winner will be announced on Friday 17th April.

Greenwich To Host World Cup Matches?

By

Greenwich.co.uk understands that Greenwich is set to play a vital role in England’s bid to host the 2018 World Cup. Confidential documents passed to this website show that sporting insiders reckon the predicted boost to the area following the 2012 Olympics will see Greenwich, and Greenwich Park specifically, emerge as one of the country’s leading sports venues.

The idea is still in the speculative stages but we have obtained the confidential image below which planners have had drawn up to show that Greenwich Park could easily fit a stadium the size of Arsenal’s “Emirates” in to it. One insider who is involved in the project told us, “We believe we can build a premier football stadium in Greenwich Park, without harming any of the trees, other than the ones in the way”.

If the plans did go ahead, one suggestion is that Charlton Athletic could relocate to the stadium after the World Cup. An Abu Dhabi based consortium is believed to have offered to finance the building of the stadium if they are granted as 99 year lease on the park by the Royal Parks Agency.

Related link: Save Greenwich Park blog

UPDATE: Ahem… Was anyone fooled??

Royal Parks Agency Consults on Park Changes

By

The Royal Parks Agency recently launched a consultation document which outlines planned changes that will affect Greenwich Park.

The proposals will mainly affect motorists who use the park. The first planned change is that the speed limit in the park should be reduced from 30mph to 20mph. The second planned change is that parking costs be increased “in line with inflation, and maintain comparison with the rates levied by authorities in the surrounding areas”. It is also planned that non-payment charges be raises to mirror the local authority.

If you want to have your say on these changes, read the consultation document in full which has details on how to make your comments.

Lord Coe Responds To Greenwich Critics

By

Seb Coe has written an article for the Telegraph in which he attempts to rebut the “myths” propogated by a “vocal minority” concerning the use of Greenwich Park as an Olympic venue.

The Locog chairman says one of the reasons for choosing Greenwich is that the location enables equestrian competitors to feel part of the games and not be detached from the main events as they have often been in previous games although he seems a little less concerned about the sailing teams who will be based in Weymouth.

He acknowledges that there might not be a “bricks and mortar” legacy but asserts that “having the equestrian events at Badminton or Burghley is not necessarily going to put one more child on a horse”.

Responding to claims that the park could be closed for a year, he says that constructions of the arena will begin in the park in April 2012 although critics will point out that he neglects to mention the test event planned for 2011. He refers to local residents as “partners” in the project and says there will be full public consultations as formal planning permission is sought.

Read the article for yourself – do you find Lord Coe’s arguments convincing?

Andrew Gilligan: Park Shenanigans (2)

By

GREENWICH Council has just sent me a council tax bill for more than £1000. But after going to its councillors’ latest Olympic-related public meeting, I’ve come to think that, for the entertainment value alone, they’re worth every penny.

Last week’s gathering, at Mycenae House, was an altogether smaller affair than the grand event at the Dome in December. As greenwich.co.uk reported at the time, the council resorted to some fairly neat body-swerves to avoid being unduly troubled on that occasion. People living within feet of the park were refused admission to the meeting on the grounds that they lived in Lewisham; organisations funded by the council were given tickets and encouraged to make “positive contributions;” other residents were told that the meeting was “full,” even as the council continued to urge its own employees to attend.

Last week’s event, however, run by the local Labour Party, was much less smooth. It took the form of Greenwich’s cabinet member for culture and the Olympics, Councillor John Fahy, spinning what can only be described as a web of purest fantasy. Here is a selection, in his own words:

1. “The Olympics in the Park have universal support.”

2. “The Olympic organisers have addressed the ecology issue, and that’s well documented.”

3. “Locog have dealt with the points being raised [by objectors] and it is a done deal.”

4. “There will not be months of closures.”

5. “There will be long-term benefits for Greenwich – watch this space.”

Let us deal with these statements in order.

1. The Olympics in the park do not have universal support. The Friends of Greenwich Park oppose them. The Blackheath Society opposes them. The Olympic rider Zara Phillips opposes them. Large numbers of local people, judging by the membership lists and responses to the anti-equestrian event campaign, Nogoe, oppose them. (Fahy later amended his claim to say that the Greenwich Park plan has “majority support,” but was unable to say how he knew that – since, to my knowledge, no surveys or polls have been done.)

2. The Olympic organisers have not addressed the ecology issue. They have certainly claimed, often, that the park will not be damaged – but as with Fahy’s claim of public support, they seem to have no basis whatever for that claim. No detailed studies of any description have yet been done to show how the ecology of the park will, or will not, be affected by putting 23,000 spectators, a stadium, hundreds of buildings and a 4-mile cross-country course in it. The only truthful answer to the ecology question is that we do not know. That’s precisely the problem.

3. Locog have not dealt with the points raised by objectors, of which the ecology and environment are of course the main ones. They have simply brushed them aside. To recap: no objector accuses Locog, or the council, of deliberately intending to damage the park. But we cannot be confident that damage will not be caused. Our confidence is further reduced precisely by the organisers’ refusal to address any of the points we make.

4. As Locog’s director of sport, Debbie Jevans, confirmed in an Evening Standard interview with me last year, most of the bottom half of Greenwich Park will be closed for “two to three months” in summer 2011 for the Olympic test event and for a further seven to eight months in 2012: a total of around ten months. “We anticipate starting major building works in March 2012 and will hand back the park about six weeks after the end of the Paralympics,” she said. The Paralympics end on September 4 2012.

5. As London 2012 itself admits, “the facilities at Greenwich Park are temporary and nothing will remain after the Games.” No legacy is planned and no-one at Greenwich Council can specify what such a legacy might be. As one objector quietly pointed out, “Greenwich Park is the legacy – a legacy of previous generations.”

What the meeting showed me, again, was the utter absence of any serious argument for doing this. It is a policy based on, at best, head-in-the-sand denial – or, at worst, a set of straightforward lies. And when the objectors to the use of the Park at the meeting made their points, the quality of the responses made by the Olympics’ defenders was even more dismally bad.

“This is a Labour Party meeting, and if you’re fed up with it then leave,” said one. “Fifty-three million people haven’t signed your petition,” snapped another. The anti-equestrian contingent was “handled” by some of the worst, most crudely partisan chairing I’ve seen in a while: step forward Marjorie Nzerem, vice-chair of the Greenwich Labour Party, who simply didn’t want to hear from anyone not following the approved line.

Councillor Fahy’s statement that the Greenwich Park Olympics are a “done deal” was, to some extent, echoed by his colleague, Alex Grant, chair of the council’s planning board, which will soon have to consider London 2012’s planning application. “While the council has a policy of supporting Greenwich hosting the Olympics, we will not be a rubber stamp,” he told the meeting, adding that “we can attach conditions” to the planning permission. Asked whether there were any circumstances in which planning permission could actually be refused, Cllr Grant declined to answer. How “done” the deal actually is, the next few months will tell.