Greenwich.co.uk

Greenwich news and information

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.

Nick Raynsford replies to NOGOE open letter

By

Last week, we published an open letter from NOGOE's John Hines to local MP, Nick Raynsford. We now publish Mr Raynsford's response.

Dear John

Thank you for your open letter of the 3rd December. I have always believed that debates on any issue should be held in a respectful and civilised manner. I have been grateful that you and I have been able to discuss the issue in a non-confrontational way.

This, however, has not always been the case with other members of NOGOE who have repeatedly distorted the evidence and predicated their arguments on a mixture of fear and rhetoric in opposition to the planned Olympic and Paralympic events in Greenwich Park.

You stated in your letter that opposition amongst local residents to the use of the park for the equestrian events stands at some 66 per cent from those who responded to Gareth Bacon’s survey. The reason why I do not accept the veracity of that survey is because it was an unscientific survey prompted by political motives. By contrast, the polling carried out by an independent market research company, Nielsen, shows that just shy of 85 per cent of the residents of Greenwich support the use of the park for the Olympic and Paralympic events. This reflects the balance of opinion among constituents who have discussed the issue with me.

Whilst I will always be open to fresh evidence which indicates a change of opinion, I will not accept the credibility of a survey designed to promote a political point when it is so evidently debunked by independent polling. As the local MP, I have to listen to the views of all constituents, not only those who are the most vocal.

NOGOE has used some very effective campaigning methods. Indeed, I have a poster in front of me now which has a picture of the park with an accompanying caption which reads “This will be a NO GO area in 2012 for several months”. This, with respect, is scaremongering, and a complete misrepresentation of the facts.
LOCOG have been very clear that the park as a whole will not be closed for several months. Indeed, the flower garden and the children’s play area will remain open to the public throughout the run-up to the games with a complete closure of the park only on the one day of the events themselves. This, understandably, is for reasons of security.

NOGOE was continuing to perpetuate the myth that the park would be closed in a BBC report in October of this year in which a spokeswoman said that it would be “socially and morally wrong” for the park to be closed, despite knowing that this would not be the case. LOCOG have also stated, quite clearly and repeatedly, that there are no plans for any trees to be cut down and claims that the park and its flora and archaeological heritage will suffer serious damage are unfounded.

I am extremely disheartened that certain elements within NOGOE are misrepresenting the facts in this way and are continuing a campaign of misinformation to oppose the application without considering the facts of the case. I hope and trust that this is not something of which you would approve.
I have received numerous representations from both sides in this matter and will always listen to evidence put before me. I am not an uncritical cheerleader for LOCOG - I support the LOCOG plan because I believe that it will bring substantial benefits to the local area and I am reassured by the plans that they have put forward.

I attended a public meeting on 23rd September at Blackheath Halls where local residents were able to directly question members from the LOCOG team about the plans. It was my impression from the meeting that many people, who had arrived as sceptics, were won over by the calm and fact-based approach of the LOCOG team, who answered the concerns of people who had been led to believe by the NOGOE campaign that the park would be seriously damaged by the Olympic events and closed for long periods of time.
With regards to the forthcoming planning decision, LOCOG will be required to make all aspects of their plan publicly available, as is the case for all planning applications. The application will have been made, mindful of planning regulations and following public consultation. The council will consider the application based on those regulations and I hope that the debate, which will no doubt take place before the planning committee, will be well informed, based on evidence and will provide all interested parties the opportunity to have their say on an equal basis. Sadly, this has not been the form of the debate over the past eighteen months and I can only hope that matters improve in the near future.

Kind regards

Nick Raynsford MP

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.

NOGOE Respond To Raynsford Criticism

By

Following our interview with Nick Raynsford in which he referred to the "bogus claims" of Olympic protestors, NOGOE have written an open letter to the MP, published in full below.

Dear Nick,

NOGOE very much regrets your uncritical cheer leading for LOCOG (most recently displayed in your interview with www.Greenwich.co.uk). As a constituency MP, we feel that you should respect, even if you don’t always agree with, the genuinely held views of all your constituents. I am therefore writing this open letter to you, which the blog site has agreed to publish.
There have already been a number of criticisms about what you said in that interview on the blog. Nevertheless, I should make the following points on behalf of NOGOE, who was most directly in your line of fire:
NOGOE has been asking LOCOG for details (what you call evidence) of its plans for more than a year; but questions are never answered, other than with generalities and bland assurances. If we had had evidence, we would, of course, have listened. I dealt with the lack of facts from LOCOG in a letter to The Mercury that was published last week (25th November). It has not prompted any response.

If it is to succeed with its planning application, LOCOG will need to establish that the Park will not be damaged (and that is not just the trees, but the archaeological remains and conduits beneath, the acid grassland and the habitats of the animals and insects that live in the Park etc). We expect those topics to be covered in the Environmental Impact Assessment, which accompanies the application, which we anxiously wait to see.

We, but obviously not you, have always found it strange that LOCOG has been able so confidently to assert that there will be no damage to the Park, before publication of the Environmental Assessment. A comment that we have made in the past to LOCOG, but again without response.

Although you have been content to go along with LOCOG’s unevidenced assurances that all will be well, we very much hope that, as our local MP, you do not endorse what Tessa Jowell said in a Radio 4 interview (You and Yours, 27th October), namely that the decision to hold events in Greenwich Park had already been made. Not only does she and others responsible for the Games give the impression that the Council’s decision is already in the bag, but some local residents are beginning to think that as a result, further opposition is fruitless.

On specific NOGOE statements that you said in your interview were false, we have not suggested that trees were going to be cut down in large numbers since LOCOG told us that that was not its intention in early 2009. If you had remembered what was in the NOGOE Report (which I hope that you read), published in March 2009 and which I made a point of sending to you in advance of public distribution, you would have recalled the following statement:

The cross-country course will inevitably pass through and along many of the avenues, whatever its final route. Although it is now accepted that there is at present no intention to fell or cut out more than small branches to improve visibility for the cross-country course riders (despite many months of protest at the lack of information, this has only recently become clear), concern about damage to root systems as a result of compaction remains a major issue.

We have since become more concerned about the extent of branch lopping and we wait to see what precautions will be taken to avoid root damage.

NOGOE has never suggested that there was to be Grand National type event. We keep our ear pretty close to the ground and, as far as we know, the only person who has ever suggested that anyone was thinking of that was Lord Coe. We are, however, concerned about how it would be intended to soften the ground for the cross-country course – you will recall that the LOCOG spokesman failed properly to answer the precise questions about that at the Blackheath meeting on 23rd September.

Your dismissal of the findings of the Bacon survey that 68% of local residents oppose the events in the Park is regrettable, but sadly not untypical of those who dislike inconvenient evidence. We have no idea as to the quality of your “evidence” that the overwhelming majority of young people in the area are wholly supportive of the events in the Park. Perhaps you should have stood at the NOGOE protest table outside the Park every weekend last summer, when we collected over 13,000 signatures against the use of the Park. Signatories were of all ages, with some of the most enthusiastic being what you would call young people.

Your suggestion that the right approach for Gareth Bacon would have been to engage seriously with LOCOG and the Royal Parks Agency as “the two agencies best able to judge how this can be managed and then to listen to their views” entirely misses the point. To suggest that LOCOG and the Royal Parks (an agency of the DCMS, which is sponsoring the Games) are best able to judge what is for the best is the equivalent of asking someone to be judge and jury in their own cause. With respect, that is a derisible proposition.

In summary, your charge that NOGOE has been dishonest in making bogus claims and dishonest statements is groundless. I leave local residents to judge whether LOCOG, with its bland, but unevidenced, assurances would have been a more appropriate recipient of the charge.

Please will you stop playing a political game; the preservation of the Park is too important for politics. While we accept that you are personally committed to the highest possible level to Olympic activity in Greenwich, don’t you think that you demean your office by dismissing with such venom anyone, including GLA Member Bacon, who seeks to put a different point of view?

We think that it would be in the interests of all concerned if you were prepared to adopt a more reasoned approach to the consideration of the merits of equestrian events in the Park. We have no doubt that strong pressures will be applied to members of the Council’s Planning Board from a number of quarters to grant permission. However, in fairness to all whom you represent, may I ask that you make it clear to your constituents that no decision has been taken by the Council and that you will expect the Planning Board to approach their difficult task with their focus solely on the planning issues?

Yours sincerely,

John Hine

NOGOE Coordinator

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

NOGOE Go To Downing Street

By

Representatives of the campaign to halt the events from the 2012 Olympic Games taking place in Greenwich Park have visited 10 Downing Street to deliver their petition to the Prime Minister.

NOGOE (No to Greenwich Olympic Equestrian Events) delivered the box containing 13,200 signatures last Friday and cheekily included a packet of biscuits.

The petition signatures were collected at the gates of Greenwich Park during the summer, and NOGOE say that postcode analysis showed that 80% of the signatories were from south-east London, 10% were from other parts of London and the remaining 10% were from the rest of the country and abroad.

Another box of signatures will be delivered to London Mayor, Boris Johnson, and Green Party assembly member, Jenny Jones, today at City Hall.

Last Day To Visit London 2012 “Shop”

By

London 2012 Shop

Tomorrow is the last chance for local residents to visit the London 2012 exhibition in College Approach.

The temporary pop-up shop has a model of how Greenwich Park might look with the temporary stadium erected, and has staff on hand to answer questions. You can also give your feedback by completing a written form in there.

The spurt of consultation activity - there's also a dedicated website and earlier this week, London 2012 equestrian chief, Tim Hadaway, penned an article for Greenwich.co.uk - comes as LOCOG prepare to put forward a formal planning application to Greenwich Council.

Have you already been to the London 2012 shop? Do you think it has been a worthwhile exercise? Should it have been there for longer and were the staff able to answer your questions? Post your comments below.

London 2012 Shop

London 2012 Is Listening

By

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.

Andrew Gilligan: Locog Goes Back on its Promise

By

LONDON 2012 has backed away from a pledge it made only last month over the total closure of Greenwich Park for the controversial Olympic equestrian events.

In a press release on 28 September, Locog announced without qualification that the period of complete closure would be cut to “four weeks, from 6 July to 3 August 2012.”

The announcement was presented as a “key concession” and hailed by the Greenwich Society as a “clear commitment as to the length of Park closure.”

However, material produced for this week’s public consultation in Greenwich shows that this “clear commitment” has already been abandoned.

In its consultation brochure Locog no longer promises to reopen the majority of the park, or any of it, on 3 August. Instead it says it will “seek” to reopen “some areas” of the park “potentially as soon as 3 August.”

Further material published on Locog’s website says explicitly: “We are unable to make guarantees about Park closures.”

As well as the total closure in summer 2012, large parts of the Park will be closed for most of the rest of the year to allow a 23,000-seat showjumping arena, ancillary buildings and stabling for 200 horses to be erected and dismantled.

It had been believed that these closures, beginning in April 2012, would be lifted in October. However, a presentation published on the Locog site shows that closures are now expected to continue until at least November.

The same presentation also shows that the Park’s closure in 2011 for the pre-Olympic test event will be far greater than previously expected.

The closure will seal off almost half the park for three weeks in June and July 2011. Almost everything which lies east of the road running through the park – except the children’s playground, the flower garden and a small area around the Observatory – will be closed.

Locog’s press release also said that “there are no planned residential road closures.” However, the presentation shows that three residential roads, Park Vista, Maze Hill and Shooters Hill Road, are designated as “core Olympic Route Network” roads, which will carry the vast majority of traffic to the Park. It seems unlikely that these will not be closed.

The presentation also makes clear that there will be a coach park in the Park for vehicles bringing competitors, staff and the “Olympic family.”

The presentation says spectators for the arena will enter the Park through the grounds of the Royal Naval College and pass through security on the front lawn of the National Maritime Museum. This means that 23,000 people will have to cross, or queue up on, Romney Road – thus almost certainly requiring its closure, too, during the Games.

Charlton Way, the main road immediately to the south of the Park, will also be closed and a “vehicle screening point” will be set up at the junction with Maze Hill.

The material also includes the first plan for the cross-country course which has not been labelled “indicative.” This shows that the course will cross directly through an avenue of the Park’s most precious trees, sweet chestnuts planted in the reign of Charles II, which are among the oldest living things in London.

One further piece of news: last week’s Mercury quotes a statement by Tim Hadaway, the equestrian competition manager, that the Olympics will “bring activity around the clock.”

I don’t know about you, but I’m looking forward to it more than ever!

Jonathan Edwards meets John Roan pupils and talks to Greenwich.co.uk

By

Jonathan Edwardes and Tim Hadaway

Triple jump world record holder Jonathan Edwards was in Greenwich today to meet pupils at John Roan School. Edwards, who is a member of the London Organising Committee for the Olympic Games (LOCOG), was accompanied by Tim Hadaway, who is is responsible for the 2012 equestrian events.

Jonathan EdwardsJonathan Edwards demonstrates the scale of his World Recording winning triple jump.

Jonathan met with pupils including the school's sports ambassadors to talk about 2012 and his own athletics career. Answering questions from the students, he explained how he became an athlete, and urged them not to sell themselves short and not to be afraid to fail.

Asked by one student about his nerves for big events, he mentioned how he had used his former Christian faith to take the pressure off himself, but suggested this could also be achieved through other support networks. Such was his success that at one point his own son told him he wanted to be Jonathan Edwards when he grew up.

Before meeting the pupils, I sat down with Jonathan Edwards and Tim Hadaway to discuss the London 2012 Olympics. I started by asking what the purpose of the visit was today.

Jonathan: It's just to raise the profile of the consultation that's going on for the equestrian events in Greenwich Park, and to come and speak to young people about my career as an athlete, so it has a bit of a double focus. There's lot of excitement, but also concern about what's going to happen in Greenwich Park for 2012.

Greenwich.co.uk: What would you say to people who are concerned about the closure of Greenwich Park for a month in 2012?

Jonathan: The first thing to say is that there's been a lot of consultation already and a number of changes have been made to the plans so initially we were looking at six to eight weeks closure and now it's down to a four weeks. The route of the Cross Country has been changed and some road closures are not happening, so there's been changes made to make it better for local residents. We wouldn't want to host the games there if we thought there would be any long term damage to Greenwich Park - it's one of the iconic features of London.

A lot of the people I've spoken to are very excited about the fact you've got biggest sporting event in the world coming to Greenwich and I think Greenwich Park will provide an incredible backdrop. The equestrian events are every dramatic and for the first time you've got those events right on the doorstep of the Olympics village.

Greenwich.co.uk: Would you encourage people in Greenwich to get tickets because I don't know that there's any kind of priority ticketing for local people?

We're looking at our ticketing policy. Clearly we will take into consideration local residents being able to see events on their doorstep, I don't think there's any question about that - balancing that with it being games for the whole of the UK. But looking at Cross Country for example, there's 75,000 [tickets] across the whole course so there's a massive opportunity, and in the arena where there will be dressage and show jumping there's 23,000 so there's a lot of tickets and a lot of availability.

Greenwich.co.uk: What about a physical legacy for Greenwich?

Jonathan: The first thing is that Greenwich Council is being given £17.5million as part of its legacy fund which if Greenwich wasn't a host borough, wouldn't be there.

Tim Hadaway: Greenwich Council are looking at a site down at Shooters Hill next to a farm you can visit, and they are looking at building a permanent equestrian centre there which would give children of the borough, and adults, the chance to get involved in the sport. There's also a plan which is quite a fun idea, that incorporates the cross country course into a new children's play area and an element of it will be designed so that the horses can actually jump over it and it will stay there, so you can imagine the kids climbing through or sliding off what has actually been one of the jumps.

Greenwich.co.uk: Would you consider equestrianism to be a world sport in the same way that athletics is?

Tim: We'll have about around the 45 mark in terms of countries that will eventually qualify, but they would have come from qualifying groups around the world. Just like the World Cup there is qualifying but the qualifying works on a world zone basis so there's a lot of countries that do compete.

Greenwich.co.uk: Do you think equestrianism has a long term future as an Olympic sport?

Tim: Yeah, absolutely, very much so. Unlike all the other Olympic sports which are about two-legged athletes, in this sport you have a four legged athlete as well and it's all about how the two work in partnership with each other. A lot of the people competing will have developed the horse they are sitting on over a number of years.

Greenwich.co.uk: What about the barrier to entry - who actually owns the horses?

Tim: That's a good question. It's gone down the route of being owned by either private individuals or often consortiums of people, a bit like racing, where you have groups of people who come together and enjoy the sport. Most of the horses that top riders ride are actually owned by other people. Sometimes riding has this perception of being expensive and inaccessible, but actually a lot of the top riders have come from a background where they haven't got a lot of private support or a lot of money themselves. Just like any other sport, they've grafted away and taken advantage of little opportunities that come their way and they've got to the level where they've been spotted perhaps and someone's given them one of their top horses (to ride).

Greenwich.co.uk: Turning to Athletics, Jonathan - we got 4 athletics medals at Beijing. Are we expecting more for 2012?

Jonathan: We did amazingly well in Berlin [World Championships in Athletics]. Beijing was slightly disappointing. We've got a new head coach, Charles van Commenee,  who took Denise Lewis to gold in Sydney and also worked with me towards the latter end of my career, and I think he's made a big difference. Berlin was highly encouraging and our best performance in a World Championship since 1993. I think it's given everyone a lot of optimism for 2012 and host nations always do well. At Beijing we came 4th in the medals table, but can we match up to that? All the indications are that we will, and we'll do better.