Greenwich.co.uk

Greenwich news and information

Cllr Matthew Pennycook on last night’s meeting to discuss traffic & pedestrianisation proposals

By

The following article was posted by Cllr Matthew Pennycook on the Greenwich West Labour website and he has kindly allowed me to reproduce it here.

Last night West Greenwich residents held a meeting in the Prince of Greenwich public house to discuss traffic-calming measures and the Greenwich Town Centre (GTC) pedestrianisation proposals that will come before the Council's Cabinet in the New Year. As local Councillors we were invited to come along to speak at the meeting.

Residents raised a variety of questions about traffic-calming measures that could be introduced to deal with the problems that already face residents in the West Greenwich Conservation Area. The potential impact of the GTC pedestrianisation proposals on nearby residential streets was also discussed.

As local representatives we apologised for any confusion that had arisen out of a small meeting Council officers held with key stakeholders and Resident Association representatives on 28th October. Local Councillors could not attend the meeting due to prior commitments. It was designed primarily as an opening discussion of plans to address the serious issues of rat-running which residents have raised with us and officials over many months. However, during the meeting residents were told by Council officers that a firm date and decision-making body for the proposals had been agreed upon. This was incorrect and as local Councillors we have taken firm action through the Council Chief Executive to ensure that a similar situation does not happen again.

During the meeting we made clear that there have been two public consultations on the GTC pedestrianisation proposals (Dec-Jan 2009/10 and July 2010) both of which were advertised in the Council's freesheet Greenwich Time and on the Council website (a copy of the Council's advertisement and questionnaire can be found to the right hand side of this page). The Council also held an exhibition in Devonport House where residents could question Council officers on any aspect of the proposed scheme.

In addition we explained how as local Councillors we had fought for an extension of the consultation period after July 2010 in an effort to get further feedback from residents. During this period we personally hand-delivered a non-political leaflet on the proposals to every household in the Ward. This leaflet contained our contact details and a freepost tear off slip so that residents could easily let us know their views or get in touch with further questions. From this additional round of consultation we received 30-40 responses from residents across the Ward including those on Crooms Hill, Prior Street, Circus Street, Gloucester Circus, Royal Hill and many more.

We reiterated that the Council is wholly persuaded of the case to address traffic problems in the West Greenwich Conservation Area and made clear our intention to implement an appropriate scheme in full consultation with local residents irrespective of whether any scheme of pedestrianisation proceeds or not.

Council officers in attendance explained that traffic modelling data made available on the 28th is part of an iterative process and information on the potential impact of the partial pedestrianisation on traffic in nearby residential streets will continue to be utilised as the details of the scheme evolve in our discussions with local residents and businesses. They also informed residents that the Council is continuing to work with Transport for London who have been engaged at each stage in order to ensure the arrangements for bus routes (including stops) are properly assessed.

We were at pains to clarify that no timetable for a decision on the partial pedestrianisation scheme has been set, not least because Council officers continue to work through the traffic implications of such a scheme and to consult with those businesses and residents who would still require some vehicular access to pedestrianised streets under the proposals.

A decision on the pedestrianisation proposals will be taken in due course by the Council's Cabinet. This will be a public meeting at which members of the public will, subject to appropriate time constraints, be welcome to speak and make representations. We assured residents who attended that full information on the traffic impact of the pedestriansation proposals and changes to bus routes and stops will be made available to the public for informed input into the decision-making process and to Cabinet members to make their decision in due course.

We will ensure that residents know the date and time of this meeting. If you wish to be kept informed please email matthew.pennycook@greenwich.gov.uk

Nick Raynsford: The effect of the CSR on housing

By

Housing is an issue with which I have been closely involved for almost all my working life, in the course of which I have seen a number of ups and downs. But at no time in the past 4 decades can I recall a bleaker outlook for people looking for a new home or a solution to their housing problem.

We have just come through the most serious recession in my lifetime.  Housing inevitably was badly affected.  Private housebuilding in England fell from just over 150,000 new starts in 2007 to just 60,000 in 2009.  This clearly had a serious impact, but things would have been far worse had the then Labour Government not taken a series of bold measures to counter the downturn.  As a result of the fiscal stimulus and more specific policies targeted at the housing market, repossessions which had been forecast to rise to similar levels to those seen in the recession of the early 1990s peaked at half that level; and because of investment through the Homes and Communities Agency in schemes such as Kickstart, the National Affordable Housing programme and Homebuy Direct, social and affordable housing programmes were maintained and confidence began to return to the market.  In the early months of this year, housebuilders were reporting month on month improvements in house sales and in the output of new homes.  It appeared that we had turned the corner.

Then came the General Election and the formation of the coalition government.  Since then a series of ill-considered, uncoordinated, untested and frankly irresponsible policy announcements and cuts have destroyed the prospects of recovery, brought the housing market to the verge of a double-dip recession and spread alarm and concern around almost every sector of the community in need of better housing.

Confidence in the private housebuilding industry has been severely damaged over the past 5 months by ill-thought out changes to the planning regime, a continuing mortgage famine, fears about rising levels of unemployment, and severe cuts to the Homes and Communities Agency budget that had been supporting many new housing and regeneration schemes.

The Times reported last week (20th October) that Bellway, Britain’s sixth largest housebuilder had “delivered what one analyst described as an ‘unremittingly bleak’ assessment of the housing market”.

“The Newcastle-based company said that while it had enjoyed a strong spring selling season consumer confidence had ‘slowly ebbed away’ after the general election and subsequent media discussion of how the government planned to tackle Britain’s budget deficit.”

The Daily Telegraph also reported last week (22 October) the Bank of England warning that home prices are likely to remain static or decline in 2011 as home loans become harder to secure after the spending cuts.

“The warning (it commented) will add to growing fears about the fragility of the housing market after values dropped last month by the biggest monthly amount ever recorded”.

The Guardian also reported last week that:

“Britain’s struggling housebuilding industry is ‘bewildered’ by the Government plan to radically change the finances of council houses, as experts warn the measures could have ‘a devastating impact’ on the future supply of social housing’”.

Now one might expect that Ministers, confronted with such dire evidence of the negative impact their policies have had over the past 6 months would now be reconsidering some of their impetuous early decisions and their harsh cuts package.  One certainly might expect Liberal Democrat Ministers to be wondering why they have lashed themselves to the mast of a Tory ship which is heading directly onto the rocks, steered by a demented helmsman, while the captain appears blithely unaware of the immediate perils they face, fixing his gaze instead on some distant coastline and imaginary sunlit uplands.

However instead of changing course, Ministers continue to press ahead on their doomed journey, ignoring all the evidence of impending disaster, and pinning their hopes on the so called ‘Housing bonus’ incentive which is as about as unconvincing as the imagined sunlit uplands.

The scheme has been promised as the panacea for the housing market for the last 6 months or more.  In the summer, the Housing Minister promised anxious housebuilders that it would be launched before the summer recess.  Then we were told all would be revealed in the autumn.  Now we are promised a consultation in November.  Yet all the while, confidence is draining away from the housing market.

And there remain huge question marks over the scheme and how the supposed panacea will work.  Will it as originally claimed, apply to all new homes granted planning consent, or only to net additions to the housing stock?  If the latter how will that incentivise regeneration and brownfield developments where because of the need to demolish existing substandard dwellings, no net increase in the stock is likely for many years.

How many homes will the scheme generate – and how will this compare with the 160,000 homes for which plans have already been ditched since the general election, and the further 120,000 – 140,000 which could be lost in the coming year, according to the report from Tetlow King planning for the National Housing Federation?

And what will be the impact, in terms of cuts to local authorities, of funding the scheme?  Which authorities will gain and which lose?

Given all the questions and doubts that have been raised from all quarters about this scheme, why has it not been trialled or piloted, to test whether there is any realistic prospect of it delivering the benefits which the Minister for Housing constantly assures us it will bring?  How can the Government claim to believe in evidence-based policy-making, while having not a shred of empirical evidence to support the case for the Housing Bonus Incentive Scheme?

As if the damage caused by their harsh Housing Benefit Cuts and their maladroit destabilising of the housing market was not enough, this Government has also embarked, in clear breach of Conservative election pledges, on dismantling the whole basis of social housing in England.

Being able to enjoy security in one’s own home is an asset which almost all of us in this House take for granted.  So do the great majority of the population.  The old adage ‘An Englishman’s home is his castle’ reflects a deep-seated belief that a secure home is a bedrock of a decent society.  So why is it that Coalition politicians who take it for granted that they should enjoy the benefit of security, should so lightly – with no manifesto commitment or mention in the Coalition agreement – move to take away that precious security from a whole group of our fellow citizens, who arguably need security more than anyone?

The only credible argument advanced by those who advocate the policy is that it will ‘free up’ social housing, so making more homes available to those in need.  But any serious analysis of the Government’s proposals shows very clearly, first that it will not have this effect, quite the contrary it will discourage mobility, and second that if it did have the intended effect, this would have disastrous social consequences.  Let’s take them in turn.

If existing tenants are not to lose their security, but new lettings will be on a new basis, without traditional security of tenure and at 80% of market rents, what will be the consequence?  Obviously existing tenants who might have considered moving to a small home, so releasing larger accommodation to those in need, will have second thoughts if the result is a loss of security and a rent increase.  So the policy would have the opposite effect of that intended.

Worse still would be the consequence of using the new insecure tenancies to require tenants to move on if their income increased or if they were judged to have enjoyed sufficient time in social housing.  What chance is there of creating mixed and balanced communities rather than ghettos of deprivation, if anyone who gets on, is told they have to leave.  If only the poor and the unemployed can occupy social housing, this is a recipe for residualisation and a total disincentive to aspiration.

So the whole concept is flawed in principle, and it would have catastrophic effects in practice.  How would people on low incomes be able to cope with a near market rent for supposedly social housing.  In the SE10 postal district at the heart of my constituency, average market rents are estimated at £380 a week. 80% of that would involve a rent level of over £300 a week for a supposedly social letting. No one in low-paid work could consider such a tenancy, unless they were to have most of the costs met by Housing Benefit.  And if they did, I can already see the double whammy of some sanctimonious Minister calling for further Housing Benefit cuts or caps on the grounds that people on benefit should not be able to live in such expensive areas.

So who will occupy any homes that are built on this basis.  Some may go, perfectly properly, to people in what is often described as the ‘intermediate’ market.  One of the more encouraging trends in recent years has been the development of mixed tenure communities with opportunities for people to occupy housing on a range of different terms – social renting, intermediate renting, market renting, low cost home ownership and outright ownership.  The whole point of such diversity is to provide for a range of needs and people in different economic circumstances.  So it makes a lot of sense to provide intermediate renting solutions as part of mixed developments.  But it makes no sense to substitute intermediate rent for social renting options, available to those on low incomes.  If in Greenwich, where social rents for council and housing association tenancies are currently in the £80-£110 a week range, all new lettings involved their substitution by lettings at 80% of market rents, the poor would lose out, and even so the scheme would probably fail, because low cost home ownership would provide a more attractive proposition to those able to pay a rent in excess of £300 a week.

In its 5 months in office the Coalition Government has already has a disastrous impact on housing in this country. The recovery from recession has been stalled, housebuilding is in crisis, social housing is facing a death warrant, private renting is being undermined by Housing Benefit cuts, hundreds of thousands of tenants are fearful as to how they can continue to afford their rent, many many more are under the threat of having to move or facing the bleak prospect of homelessness.  It is difficult to think of a more inept and deplorable record in such a short period of time.  One can only hope that Ministers will come to their senses and recognize that this is no way to run housing policy.  Our country and our people deserve better.

“Schools united for change in Greenwich”

By

South London Citizens have contributed this article about the work they are doing with local schools in Greenwich.

Over the past year or so, children and parents from three Greenwich primary schools in membership of South London Citizens have been working together to address issues of street safety.

When a 10-year old child from St Joseph’s Primary School tells you that he doesn’t feel safe walking from his home to his local leisure centre (which is only five minutes away), when a child from Halstow Primary School tells you that she can’t go and visit her friend in the evening even though she only lives a few streets away from her, when a child from St Alfege with St Peter’s Primary School tells you he is worried about going to secondary school next year as waiting for the bus with lots of other children can often be intimidating, members of South London Citizens in Greenwich get together and act.

Since a first meeting in May 2009 where twenty-five parents and children got together to think about safety in their local area, a lot has happened. Discussions between schools have taken place, research has been carried out to identify problems which have then been refined into specific issues, and actions have developed to make things better. The CitySafe campaign – a community-led campaign that addresses issues of street safety and which builds positive relationships between schools, the police, and local neighbours – has been involving scores of like-minded citizens who believe in a world where people work together.

If you look at what you can find between St Alfege with St Peter’s, St Joseph’s, and Halstow primary schools, what do you find? Lots of shops is the answer!

Groups of children and parents decided, therefore, to approach the hundred or so shopkeepers that work on Trafalgar Road and the portion of Woolwich Road that goes to the East Greenwich Library and asked them to work with South London Citizens to make the area safer. But what do you ask shopkeepers in order to make the area safer? Two main things:

  1. You get them to pledge to report 100% of crime and anti-social behaviour
  2. You get them to offer their premises as a place of haven for anyone in danger

Out of the hundred or so shops approached, about sixty agreed to join the CitySafe campaign. The local schools are building teams of children and parents who will visit the shops on a regular basis to review if and how the campaign is making things better.

In the past few days, sixty parents and children, joined by police officers, went to visit shops and got some great feedback. Some shopkeepers on Trafalgar Road, for instance, are pleased to report that police officers have been visiting the shops more regularly. Some young people have also been using the shops when they have not been feeling too safe. As the shops were visited, flowers were given to the shopkeepers by children as a sign of gratitude.

It is clear that things are not going to change overnight, but all the members of South London Citizens involved in this work in Greenwich agree that if you know you know and are ready to support your neighbours, your street becomes safer. This is the simple message the CitySafe campaign is spreading in the streets of Greenwich!

See a couple of videos about the CitySafe campaign across London and in Greenwich: www.southlondoncitizens.org.uk/citysafe and www.southlondoncitizens.org.uk/greenwich.

For more details on London Citizens and community organising, see a video on the Citizens UK blog: www.citizensukblog.org.

Should Maze Hill station be renamed?

By

Maze Hill Train Station

The East Greenwich Cultural Corridor Committee are considering ideas for promoting East Greenwich. Here, Liz Wrigley puts forward the suggestion that Maze Hill station be renamed "East Greenwich station"

The station is very close to the East Greenwich area, and is the most convenient station for both the park and for the University, as well as servicing the shops on Trafalgar Road and other East Greenwich venues. As a mainline station is has a fast, regular service to London Bridge, where you can join the underground easily, get to Charing Cross (by changing platform) and to the south to connect to say Gatwick also by changing platform.

However at present visitors by rail get off, understandably, at Greenwich station (which is nearly half way to Deptford! It is a station that was the Greenwich stop on the original London to Greenwich route, way back in 1838 when this little Kent village first joined with the capital, before the tunnel under the museum and park was made and the route extended east, and has no other significance to its location or name).

No one would guess that Maze Hill is actually much closer to the Greenwich historical town centre attractions.  National Rail travel to here from central London is now on the oyster card system so you do not even need a separate ticket.

We are looking at a long term strategy to bring East Greenwich onto the mental map of the rest of London and the world, as at present it is overlooked, being just beyond the east edge of the World Heritage area, a place where at present maps may as well say 'there be dragons here'.

In summary, the station is:

  • close to the park, with a park entrance very near
  • close to the Maritime Museum
  • close to the river Thames,
  • close to the town centre markets

Liz Wrigley
Planning  / Urban Design Consultant
East Greenwich Cultural Corridor Committee

What do you think? Would it be beneficial to East Greenwich if Maze Hill station was renamed? Have your say in the comments below.

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.

Nick Raynsford: The Challenge of Regenerating Greenwich

By

Nick Raynsford MPGreenwich is a place of paradox – at the same time very familiar and yet unknown. Mention Greenwich to people living elsewhere in Britain or indeed overseas, and it will almost always strike a light. The home of time, site of the Prime Meridian, location of some of the country’s finest baroque architecture, the magnificent Royal Park with its unparalleled views over London. These are just some of the characteristics that make Greenwich world famous.

But much of the locality remains largely unknown beyond the Borough boundaries. The acres of formerly derelict land on the Greenwich Peninsula might until recently have been part of a different planet. The terraces of housing in East Greenwich nestling at the bottom of the Blackheath escarpment are equally unfamiliar. And traveling east towards Charlton, the swathe of retail and commercial buildings lying between the Anti-Gallican Pub and the river – once the historic ropewalk, so redolent of Greenwich’s naval history – are as anonymous as similar sheds in countless other cities.

When I was first elected MP for the area in 1992 another paradox of Greenwich was brought home to me brutally by an event which shocked the country. The murder of Stephen Lawrence just across the constituency boundary in Eltham, but very much part of the Borough, was a savage reminder of the problems confronting the area. Greenwich had suffered more than most parts of London from the collapse of the traditional heavy industries that had once provided the area’s economic bedrock. In the atmosphere of decline and despair that appeared endemic at that time, it was hardly surprising if racism and inter-communal conflicts reared their ugly heads.

It taught me early on in my time as an MP, the importance of bringing investment, economic development and regeneration activity that would not only create new jobs, but build aspiration, skills and hope. Transport was clearly critical. The shortage of efficient and reliable links to central London and across the river was a major obstacle to new investment. The arrival of the Jubilee line, the DLR and a long overdue riverbus service has begun to redress the balance. Better bus links and easier interchange between different transport modes as oystercard is extended to surface trains will also help. So too will continuing improvement in the reliability and frequency of South-Eastern train services.

But if improved accessibility is vital, so too is the replacement of the largely defunct 19th century industrial base with employers likely to thrive in the very different economic climate of the early 21st Century. Creative industries are an obvious example, with strong links to higher education. So the arrival of Trinity and Laban, the University of Greenwich on the old Royal Naval College site, Ravensbourne College and the O2 on the Peninsula have made and will continue to make a very significant impact on the local economy as well as the area’s cultural vitality.

Another paradox has been tourism. While Greenwich is internationally renowned, it has not realized the full economic benefit of that fame. Most visitors come as ‘day trippers’ admiring Greenwich but returning mainly to central London in the evenings, where the great bulk of their spending also takes place. Yet Greenwich is a beautiful place to stay, and local businesses would benefit from more overnight visitors, so the development of a wider range of hotels is also vital to the area’s long-term economic strength.

The key to successful regeneration is effecting change while protecting and preserving the best from the past. In Greenwich more than almost anywhere else on earth that is the challenge to which we must rise.

A donation was made to the Greenwich Association of Disabled People in lieu of payment for this article.

Platform: The Olympic Threat To Greenwich Park

By

"Platform" is our new magazine strand where contributors make the case on an issue they care about. This first article has been compiled by Sev D'Souza from NØGØE (No to Greenwich Olympic Equestrian Events).

I am a committee member of NØGØE ( No to Greenwich Olympic Equestrian Events) and I am writing to ask your readers to join over 2300 others in signing an e-petition opposing the use of Greenwich Park. They can visit our website where there is a link to the petition. Now’s a good time to apply pressure because the Olympic Board is reviewing the original decision following a review by KPMG, whose terms of reference are secret but are unlikely to have included damage assessments.

NØGØE was dismissed as an alarmist group representing a tiny minority but, after the publication of a poll in the Evening Standard on 24 October showing that 51% of respondents were against the use of Greenwich Park, we feel we are now representing the concerns of a growing majority of Londoners.

NØGØE was formed by members of various local amenity societies who felt that more active opposition, rather than co-operation, was needed to stop the decision to use the Park. A whole team has worked together and put considerable thought and research into our case for opposition, which we would like to share with your readers. We are against the use of the Park on the basis of size, damage, disruption and legacy. Before we outline our case, it is worth examining how this decision was taken.

The Process

Through Freedom of Information we have found out that the decision to use the Park was based on the scenic backdrop, the proximity to the Olympic Village, and to promote riding in urban London. No cost benefit analysis was done on the Park or any other venue. The organisers (LOCOG) over-estimated the capacity of the Park by having a plan for the bid that was not drawn to scale. Would any accountable business take a multi million pound decision on such a basis? (Figures of £12m and £20m have been mentioned for using Greenwich Park). LOCOG are privately funded to stage the Games, but any losses are underwritten by the Government, so it is in tax payer’s interests for costs to be minimised and revenue maximised (for example 250,000 people can attend cross country riding in Badminton, about 5 times more than in the Park). LOCOG are holding consultations on 15, 20 and 29 November. Check their website for details, then please go along and ask “Seb & Co” some searching questions.

Size

A revised plan of the cross country course has now been published, and three points stand out: first, only about 25% of the course covers the lower half of the Park, so the famous backdrop looking towards Canary Wharf will have very little exposure; and secondly, the space is so tight that it will probably limit horse movements and spectator numbers, and also impact on the space needed for temporary structures and equipment,and indeed probably affect evacuation in the event of an emergency of any kind; and thirdly, the limited space for stabling will mean that horse transportation will probably have to be done in stages with resultant impact on congestion of local roads.

Damage

It has been 3 years since the bid was won, and yet there appear to be no impact assessments of environment, built heritage or historic landscape available, and timing is very tight if a move is to be considered. LOCOG state that there was no damage to the course in Hong Kong but, without getting too technical, comparisons between a man-made golf course and a sensitive heritage site are spurious. In HK millions were spent on digging up the track and turfing with a tough, hoof-resistant grass; this can’t be done in the Park mainly because of the trees and the archaeology. We have walked the proposed x-c course and made the following observations:

1. It is possible that mature trees may be cut down. We could not see how it would be possible to avoid cutting down quite a large number of the smaller trees, maybe about 20, perhaps more. The lower branches of a large number of trees, in particular mature trees, are likely to be lopped off. Damage to tree roots is also a possibility. Will vulnerable trees be fenced off as protection against unsupervised sub-contractors?

2. Running the course through the flower garden could risk damage to many cedar trees. It was not clear from the map whether the course would actually go through the lake in the flower garden but, even if not, might this have an effect on the water fowl and other wildlife? The stag beetles are an endangered species and the tawny owls (protected by law) could be affected by floodlighting.

3.The position and type of fences are not shown on the plan. It is fairly obvious that these need to be positioned well away from trees since they will have to be secured into the ground.

4. The course goes right over one of the Saxon barrows which is south of the path

5. It goes straight through the ridge and furrow remains of medieval cultivation south of the bandstand. Will additional earth be used for levelling off, thus affecting the topography?

6. By running alongside the wall from the flower garden northwards it runs the risk of unearthing more Roman remains if the ground should be muddy. It is customary for an archaeologist to be present if ground surface is penetrated. Will the organisers take measures for safeguarding archaeological material? Recent material was found a few inches below the surface and the Park, already with 76 archaeological features, is growing in importance as a heritage site.

7.Horse manure will destroy the acid grasslands and the related wild flowers and wildlife at a time when the Government is committed to increasing bio-diversity in London.

8. The track itself is likely to be damaged, especially if wet, by 75 horses galloping through over a 4 hour period.

9. Will there be a cast iron assurance that dedicated trees will not be moved? And, if dedicated benches have to be moved, will relatives be notified so as not to cause distress?

10. There is a risk that the Government could breach undertakings made to UNESCO regarding environmental conservation and protection; and thus endanger the Park’s WHS status.

In a letter full of weasel phrases from Jackie Brock-Doyle of LOCOG, she states that “damage will be minimised”. That’s an acknowledgement that there will be damage. Surely any damage to a world heritage site is unacceptable for the sake of a sporting event. We would rather take note of David Starkey’s assertion in the Evening Standard (24 October) that the Park will be damaged by this event and the Times leader (25 August) suggesting “irreparable damage”. Hugh Robertson MP is also “concerned”, and so is Boris Johnson, who thinks (report in London Lite 31 October) that significant damage may be caused.

Disruption

There are three aspects of concern, relating to construction, closures and logistics.

First, the construction of the arena in front of the Queen’s House: With a 23000 capacity( 83% that of Charlton Athletic’s Valley) this is a major building project which raises many problems/questions:

1. The IOC have very particular standards for the dressage and jumping surfaces and in Hong Kong ground levellers were used to improve land drainage. There might also be a requirement for very high, “Broadcast Quality” floodlighting, the mountings for which in HK were driven into the ground. There will need to be quite a number of power generators (41 in HK), cabling, restaurants, toilet facilities, hospitality areas etc. Also in HK there were 311 temporary structures, including a VIP viewing gallery.

2. Where will stabling for all the horses be located, and how will the odour, ventilation, waste disposal and sewage affect the area if additional tunnelling and drainage is required?

3. The horses, riders, support teams – vets, nutritionists, farriers, trainers, grooms and their supplies – including vast quantities of water - will require accommodation plus acclimatisation areas, warm-up and cool down areas – including stretches to canter and gallop. Will these be located in the Park?

4. The large transportation boxes for the horses – where will these be accommodated and how will they enter and leave the park?

5. During construction of the arena, what measures will be taken to protect residents from noise and inconvenience?

6. How will local residents be protected from the arena noise – PA system, leisure and filming helicopters and other intrusions?

7. Main roads are likely to be closed for weeks; severe parking restrictions might be applied for residents and visitors; and one lane of the Blackwall Tunnel is likely to be closed for all but the “Olympic Family” during events.

Secondly, Park closures: Once again the LOCOG letter stated that “talk of months of closures are not accurate”. Yet later at the AGM of Greenwich Society LOCOG confirmed that building of the arena would commence in April 2012. With the Paralympics ending in September, it means that the bottom end of the Park could be closed for 7 months. This is the most popular part of the Park, with school trips and sports days during the week, and thousands of visitors at the weekend. These people tend to arrive by public transport and spend money in the town. They won’t necessarily go to the top end of the Park and, if they stay away, it might impact on the local economy for 28 weekends.

Closures will also affect the Flower Garden during preparation of the course and the event itself. This area is where mothers and babies congregate, and hundreds of children come to feed the squirrels and ducks, and see the deer. To deprive local people access to this valuable ‘countryside in the town’ is unacceptable.

Thirdly, the logistics: Imagine the construction traffic along the congested Trafalgar Road, not to mention the horse boxes, the equipment and support services. Then consider the 23000 spectators coming by train and DLR putting further strain on the transport system. No one knows how many spectators will line the x-c route (20,000?). What’s clear is that the disruption will be unfair to Park users and a nightmare for a densely populated neighbourhood. It is madness to hold such a major event in an urban park that is a ‘lung’ for congested SE London.

Legacy

In choosing Greenwich Park, there is an attempt to promote equestrianism in an urban environment. However, if by now ordinary people in towns have not taken up the sport, there are probably very good reasons - space, stabling and cost. Both Greenwich Council and Nick Raynsford MP have stated that free riding lessons for under-privileged and disadvantaged kids would be a wonderful legacy. Such a legacy is probably not sustainable. Anyway there is no evidence that winning in elite sports inspires grassroots participation. Indeed a Chinese equestrian competitor has stated in the official Beijing Olympics website that cost will deter people from taking up riding as a sport. Back home, the Chairman of a House of Commons Public Audit Committee stated that, “if young people don’t take it up because they don’t see public school boys and girls (who make up 80% of medal winners) as role models, there is effectively no legacy - just wasted money”.

Conclusion

It appears that financial and environmental impact assessments were not carried out before Greenwich Park was chosen. LOCOG say that final plans will be submitted for planning permission in Autumn 2009. What if it’s then too late to change venues despite confirmation of negative impacts? There are indications to suggest that this is a ‘done deal’; that opposition is futile; and that ‘consultations’ are to listen to concerns, not to review decisions made, however un-democratically they were taken. We hope that, through heightened public awareness of the problems, pressure can be brought to have this decision reversed.

Now is the time to change this outrageous decision. The extensive Park closures are an imposition on ordinary people without gardens, and for thousands for whom it is a “Green Gym”. The impact from months of disruption from traffic congestion and construction work is disproportionate for an event lasting a few days. Also importantly, there is a risk of irreparable damage to the fabric of the Park. Greenwich Council base their support for using the Park on “assurances secured from LOCOG” (GT 5 November). But why believe them before an Environmental Impact Assessment? In terms of legacy, the only real one could be the loss of diversity, and damage to the ecology, topography and archaeology of the Park.

NØGØE’s plea to the Olympics Board is: Just to be close to the Olympic Village, and for pretty TV pictures to please the sponsors, equestrian federations and the IOC, don’t risk going down in history as the people who trashed Greenwich Park.

What do you think about Sev's article? Use the comments feature to add your thoughts, or if you think you can write your own article to feature in the new Platform section, please get in touch.