Banging On About Greenwich Park Again
...and I will continue to do so. No apologies.
Richard has sent me this link to an article in today's Times. In it Jane Owen describes the proposals as cultural vandalism, and she has a point. What worries me is that when LOCOG were asked if trees were to be removed, Owen tells us they said it's "too early to tell."
That just isn't good enough. There should be NO QUESTION of whether these trees should be removed or not. The issue shouldn't be raised in the first place. As far as the trees are concerned there is no room for manoeuvre. There is nothing to be discussed. Those trees are more important than any sporting event.
If they can squeeze in the equestrian events with the absolute condition of NO trees or potential archaeological sites to be damaged in any way, they will get my grudging acceptance. But this has to be got right first time, and, frankly, I don't trust LOCOG to do that.
Those chestnuts cannot be replaced. If there is even an outside chance that these royal antiques (for that's what they are - if they were a piece of priceless Stuart furniture or a fabulous wooden building with such strong royal connections this wouldn't even have got to discussion-stage - and, just think - these are LIVING pieces of history) will suffer any damage then it's a closed book as far as I'm concerned.
There's one small point upon which I take (with a heavy heart) issue with Jane Owen. She suggests that a more realistic Olympic heritage than trying to get people into horsey-sport would be allotment gardening. Yes, in my dreams too. But given the 100-strong waiting list for Prior Street allotments and the eleven years thumb-twiddling I was quoted for the Humber Road allotments, I'm not convinced it would be any more attainable in our modern city than horseboxes-for-all.
But don't get me on the loss of Greenwich allotments. I'd be typing all day...
Richard has sent me this link to an article in today's Times. In it Jane Owen describes the proposals as cultural vandalism, and she has a point. What worries me is that when LOCOG were asked if trees were to be removed, Owen tells us they said it's "too early to tell."
That just isn't good enough. There should be NO QUESTION of whether these trees should be removed or not. The issue shouldn't be raised in the first place. As far as the trees are concerned there is no room for manoeuvre. There is nothing to be discussed. Those trees are more important than any sporting event.
If they can squeeze in the equestrian events with the absolute condition of NO trees or potential archaeological sites to be damaged in any way, they will get my grudging acceptance. But this has to be got right first time, and, frankly, I don't trust LOCOG to do that.
Those chestnuts cannot be replaced. If there is even an outside chance that these royal antiques (for that's what they are - if they were a piece of priceless Stuart furniture or a fabulous wooden building with such strong royal connections this wouldn't even have got to discussion-stage - and, just think - these are LIVING pieces of history) will suffer any damage then it's a closed book as far as I'm concerned.
There's one small point upon which I take (with a heavy heart) issue with Jane Owen. She suggests that a more realistic Olympic heritage than trying to get people into horsey-sport would be allotment gardening. Yes, in my dreams too. But given the 100-strong waiting list for Prior Street allotments and the eleven years thumb-twiddling I was quoted for the Humber Road allotments, I'm not convinced it would be any more attainable in our modern city than horseboxes-for-all.
But don't get me on the loss of Greenwich allotments. I'd be typing all day...
posted by The Greenwich Phantom at
10:03
28 Comments:
On a tangent, I was reading another blog a few weeks ago (which I now cannot find), and it explained that Section 23 of the 1908 Allotments Act is still in force - and if 6 or more people petition for an allotment, then the council is required by law to provide one, even if that means using compulasary purchase orders to secure the necessary land.
I am sure more legally wise people will be able to elaborate on that act and if it is still actionable.
I do believe the park was all allotments in the second world war. Dig for victory as they say!
Derek Spurr of the Royal Parks has said that no trees will be damaged. The question is this - is his the final word? Do the Royal Parks have absolute control here (if so, nothing to worry about, it seems, as their position is clear and is the correct one), or can some other body over-ride them and impose the events and any collateral damage as a fait accompli? If so, we could well be in trouble. What's Nick Raynsford doing/saying about this?
I believe Our Nick has said his usual - nothing whatsoever. I don't believe he has an opinion on anything unless it involves his being able to build some new housing.
And I have the horrid suspicion that the Olympics will ride roughshod over everything if they are allowed to.
I have said it before and I will say it again,The only cross country ,jumpy horsey race thing that will work in the park is if they use Shetland Ponies!
Think of all the free manure for the Rose garden!
Just to let everyone know that I've just emailed Nick Raynsford to ask what the plans are and to register local concern at (rumours of) trees being axed and the park being shut.
I will let TGP know as soon as I hear back from our MP - but if we hear nothing, I understand he'll be holding his surgery on friday night at the Labour Party office.
HIS WEBSITE SAYS:
To register at my advice surgery you must call my office in advance on 020 72195895
Every 2nd and 4th Friday of themonth
32 Woolwich Road
Greenwich
SE10
at 7.00pm
Kate P
I swear if they remove one leaf I may be tempted to do a swampy and chain myself to a tree. Damn the Olympic committee and their stupidity!
Does anyone know the facebook group? I'll join! I've signed the petition!
The facebook group is Stop The Olympics Destroying Greenwich Park. I've just joined - may not do any good, but it surely can't do any harm.
Every little helps.
I've just phoned the Royal Parks. The guy I spoke to tells me they are waiting for LOCOG to get back to them with their proposals, which he estimates to be in the next 2-4 months.
He said the Royal Parks are the hosts, LOCOG the organisers and they are working together to make sure the plans are "acceptable and realistic".
The Royal Parks are currently commissioning surveys on trees and archeology so they're "well informed". He says they will say NO to removing any veteran or historic trees, and they will resist any adverse effect on anything else.
He says the 18 month closure is a scare story, but admits there will be a period of closure ("probably a matter of weeks or 1 or 2 months or just certain areas") and that there will likely be a "test event" the year before.
All still seems full of loopholes to me... and
LOCOG have apparently met The Friends of Greenwich Park and The Greenwich Society - I think it's those three groups concerned residents need to talk to about this.
I'm a member of the Friends of Greenwich Park -at their recent AGM a number of members were asking for a Special Meeting to discuss the proposals, at the moment this is planned for mid-July.
Does anyone know the views of The Greenwich Society?
More details as I get them!
Kate P
This from Nick:
Thank you for your letter about Greenwich Park and the 2012 Olympics.
The choice of Greenwich Park as a site for the equestrian events and modern pentathlon was agreed as part of London’s Olympic bid and confirmed by the IOC after London was awarded the 2012 games. It is a contractual commitment which is not open to renegotiation and I cannot support suggestions about moving the equestrian events or indeed other Olympic sport to different locations. The reason for locating the equestrian events and the modern pentathlon in Greenwich Park flows from the logic of London’s bid to stage the games in 2012. That was to host a ‘compact’ Olympic games, with the great majority of events taking place in East and South East London and, through doing so, help to support the regeneration of some of the poorer parts of the capital. That is why events that might otherwise have been staged in more distant locations are taking place in London. Another example is the shooting which will be held at the Woolwich Barracks.
The IOC is very strongly supportive of the ‘compact’ games approach and Seb Coe has emphasised to me how important it is for the athletes from different disciplines to be competing in relatively close proximity and sharing accommodation in the Olympic village rather than being scattered across the country. So there are strong sporting as well as regeneration reasons for the approach adopted by London and endorsed by the IOC. The London Olympics organising team, the Mayor of London, the Government and the IOC have been very clear about the benefits of the compact Olympics, centred on East and South East London and I personally also strongly support this approach.
Despite this, Greenwich Park would not have been selected as a location if it was not able to accommodate all the activities associated with staging an Olympic event. This includes the courses – cross-country as well as the show jumping in the arena – facilities for stabling and warming-up the horses, space for spectators and the media, facilities for the necessary organisational support and security. There has been detailed discussion with the Royal Parks Management about these issues and a series of studies have been commissioned to ensure that all the relevant concerns, such as landscape, ecology and archaeology, are taken into account when the design and location of the course, arena and other facilities are being finalised. I have been very closely involved in the process as I want to ensure that we get the best possible outcome while minimising inconvenience to the public (access to parts of the Park and the National Maritime Museum will inevitably be affected for certain periods of time).
I don’t expect final decisions on the design of the equestrian events to be finalised for another few months, but I can assure you that I will be keeping a close watch on the proposals as they emerge and will not support any proposals that have a damaging impact on the long-term health, viability and attractiveness of Greenwich Park which is one of our most treasured assets.
Yours sincerely,
Nick Raynsford MP
Hmm. So what do we think of this, then? I'm deeply suspicious myself. I don't think we can dare leave it to the Olympics committee or our esteemed MP to look after the park. I think we need to be vigilant in the extreme.
I agree the Olympic ctte nor the politicians can be trusted to organise the proverbially p*ss up in the brewery!
I emailed Alex Grant (chair of the Planning committee, I think) about this recently. Personally I think that the council see this as a cash cow and will put up feeble, if any, resistance to it. Here's some of his reply
"While I agree that LOCOG's plans, which should emerge fairly soon, for the Park deserve close scrutiny, I am concerned that the campaign against the horse events seems convinced that a large number of trees will need felling, and that the park will need to be entirely closed for a long period of time prior to the games. Neither LOCOG nor the Royal Parks has said that either will happen.
I think the best thing to do now is await LOCOG's plans - which will require planning consent (and full public consultation) if they involve any loss of trees, or any temporary structure in place for more than 28 days - and then comment. I see no reason why anyone should be campaigning to relocate equestrian events away from Greenwich on the basis of rumour and scare-mongering, and before any detailed plans emerge."
OK head above the parapet here, I am a Greenwich resident and I 3 day event. Where I keep my horse there is an annual event which I have helped at for 3 years.
I use the park daily to walk my dogs and love it dearly and do not want it damaged. I am confident that a testing and demanding course can be built without irreparable damage to the park. My only disappointment is the facilities will be temporary.
I for one can't wait for the games to come to London. Nor am I too worried about damage to the park having been involved at grass roots with equestrian activities.
I would be the first to complain if I thought there would be a problem.
me again - when I say not worried about damage - I mean I do not believe that there will be unacceptable levels of damage. Parkland will repair itself really quickly, as I have seen for myself.
The problem is that it's not grass land. It's tunnels and caverns and as yet unidentified archaeological sites, and 300 years and older chestnuts and oaks.
And Alex Grant, Chair of the Greenwich Council Planning committee and Labour Cllr for Westcombe Park writes to me echoing the Nick Raynsford line:
"I agree that LOCOG's plans for the park, which should emerge fairly soon, deserve close scrutiny. But I am concerned that the campaign against the horse events seems convinced that a large number of trees will need felling, and that the park will need to be entirely closed for a long period of time prior to the games. Neither LOCOG nor the Royal Parks has said that either will happen.
I think the best thing to do now is await LOCOG's plans - which will require planning consent (and full public consultation) if they involve any loss of trees, or any temporary structure in place for more than 28 days - and then comment. I see no reason why anyone should be campaigning to relocate equestrian events away from Greenwich on the basis of rumour and scare-mongering, and before any detailed plans emerge."
FINE - YES, EVRYTHING IS BASED ON RUMOUR AT THE MOMENT BUT I THINK IT DOES NO HARM TO KEEP THE PRESSURE ON OUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES THAT LOCALS WON'T ACCEPT DAMAGE - OR CLOSURE - TO A BELOVED PARK.
Jan
Anononymous 3-day eventer - you have a point - and I for one don't actually mind having the events here IF I can be satisfied that NO permanent damage will be done. I am not satisfied so far, and the inability of LOCOG to say anything other than "wait and see" doesn't encourage me to be satisfied. I think pressure needs to be started now, while there is still time to make it clear that damage is not acceptable. If we 'wait and see' that could be taken for tacit approval.
Speaking personally, my approval has to be earned. And they haven't managed to do that yet.
Give me an olympics in the Park that is damage free, and I'll join you in the front row...
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/lords/?id=2008-06-12a.674.0
Just to round this off, this is the response I got from Boris (or at least one of his team....
Dear Mr XXXXXXXX,
Thank you for your email to the Mayor regarding Greenwich Park and the Equestrian events
Greenwich Park will be host to the Olympic and Paralympic Equestrian events as well as the Running and Riding disciplines of the Modern Pentathlon.
LOCOG is working closely with the London Borough of Greenwich, the Royal Parks Authority and National Maritime Museum to develop detailed plans. Residents and park users will be consulted throughout the process, as well as having the opportunity to comment further during a formal consultation period.
Plans will be submitted to Greenwich Council, as the local planning authority, in late 2009 with an accompanying Environmental Impact Assessment report.
Until this early feasibility work has been completed, it is not possible to state if, when, or for how long areas of the Park might be closed. However, LOCOG's aim is to ensure minimum disruption to the Park and residents.
Further information is available from LOCOG who can be contacted at http://www.london2012.com/contact-us.php
Yours sincerely
Jane Harmsworth
Olympic and Thames Gateway Team
Just a quick note on my last post...they say planning application will not be made and I quote "in late 2009 with an accompanying Environmental Impact Assessment report"...so we have some wait.
That is a truly crap answer. It's not even sitting on the fence - it couldn't care less.
Still. At least you got an answer. I'm still waiting...
Just a quick note, there are a couple of facebook places: one is 'Stop The Olympics Destroying Greenwich' which is abit OTT and does have a lot of members, although seems to promote videos and rants about US in general. Not much actual work there I don't think. Then there is my own (as a greenwich resident), Save Greenwich Park, with its links to Greenwich Phantoma nd a process for writing letters. I haven't pushed mine (yet) but is growing by word of mouth. whatever does the trick really. Richard
The plan to use the park were made in 2005. The local MP Nick Raysford and Mr.Fahy of Greenwich council both seem very happy about the proposed use of the park. I find it very difficlt to believe that the three years that have pass since lONDON got the games the locog have not a very good idea of how the eventing course would work . The geometry is very simple the park is 1000 m from north to south and 800 m from east to west . These figures were supplied by the Royal Parks and they do agree with the ordance survey map of the area . The size of the eventing course is 6270 m
(from BEF web site)and the width of the course is 10m . To insert this course into the park will be very difficult unless the course designer are given a very free hand . The BEF do publish a possible course on their web site but if you measure it ( use you dividers from your days at school ) it comes out at about 4300 m. To get a 6270 m course into the park means that the course will have to go up and down the park about 6 times . I would suggest that next time you visit the park work out how you would construct such a course . The reasons after three years no proper plans have been published is that locog are worried about the resultant riots . They already talk about not destroying old trees , but young trees will be fair game . I would suggest that plans do exist but are being kept secret , they must have made plans before even suggesting the use of the park.
NICK RAYNSFORD had no difficulty in voting to stop a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty and had no difficulty ratifying it either.
As he cares not a jot for England why should he care about the small patch called Greenwich Park ?
We shall see.
I have just become aware of the potential distruction of old historic trees in Greenwich Park as a result of the Olympic equestrian events to be held there and I have spent the last hour doing some research.
Two quick points I would like to add are:
1. I wonder how many other people are simply unaware of what is in store for Greenwich Park?
2. This link is interesting:
http://www.bef.co.uk/The_Olympic_&_Paralympic_Games/Frequently_Asked_Questions_about_Greenwich.html
It seems to me that we will have to get out on foot and raise local awareness on this issue. Only a very large throng of opposition will have any chance of making the organisers reconsider. It doesn't take a great deal of imagination to realise that a very large number of trees will likely to be felled to make room for the cross country event which is too big for the park.
In addition to my previous post. There has been some discussion on this blog about the criss-crossing of the park in order to 'shoe-horn' this oversized event into an undersized Greenwich Park.
This link shows the proposed layout:
http://www.bef.co.uk/Downloads/Greenwich%20Park.pdf
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home