An intimate guide to life in Greenwich
Art - Ask The Phantom - Basics - Books - Cafes - Days Out - Debates - Drinking - Eating Out - Events - Favourite Haunts - Food and Drink - Free Greenwich - Gay - Going Out - Green Greenwich - Greenwich People - Mostly-Accurate History - News - Not-Quite-Greenwich - Open Spaces - Places of Interest - Regional Greenwich - Reviews - Secret Greenwich -Services - Shopping - Streets - Takeaways - Things to Do - Weird Greenwich - Where to Stay
posted by The Greenwich Phantom at
09:50
Greenwich is one of the coolest "uncool" places there is in London. It's not profoundly unfashionable - rather somewhere where it doesn't occur to people that there is anything more than a few museums, a nice park and the Cutty Sark. The really adventurous might know about the Trafalgar Tavern or venture out to Greenwich market on a Sunday afternoon, but essentially, Greenwich is still relatively undiscovered for one of the great regions of London. I adore Greenwich - but I'm not blind to its faults either. In this journal I take an affectionate but honest - at times brutally so - look, giving my own personal low-down on the things to do - and one or two of the things NOT to do in Greenwich. I am being unashamedly parochial here. I will talk about the tourist sites, of course - how could I not when we have a World Heritage Site on our doorstep - but also about the things which make our town great - the little things. Interesting vistas, cool shops, bizarre novelties and quirky one-offs which make this place buzz. Greetings, by the way, to all of you who have travelled with me from Livejournal - and thank you for making the journey.
RSS Feed [Atom]
61 Comments:
Well Mrs Rod and I had tickets and were going, but, as luck would have it, I had an industrial accident at work and spent more or less the whole day in the specialist eye unit at Queen Mary's, Sidcup :-[
However it was featured in the BBC late evening London news, and they said 500 people turned up, which I think is quite respectable. The Beeb announced it as "LOCOG go head to head with local protestors".
I too would love to hear from someone who had a better day than I and actually managed to attend the meeting.
Obviously Mr. Roberts has been squatting over his cauldron of bubbling brew (whisky, most like) and putting a hex on people so that they couldn't go - I had planned to attend as well but started coming down with summat nasty in the morning and didnt feel up to going.
I was there until the bitter end and, for me, the highlight was Tim Hadaway proposing (seemingly off the top of his head) that turning one of the jumps into a children's play area would be a suitable legacy for the park.
The chairman, Bob Scott, started off the presentation cheerfully enough but when it came to the Q&A session at the end he was clearly very defensive and started making flippant remarks to members of the audience who got on the wrong side of him.
The presentation itself was very slick with lots of Powerpoint slides, pretty pictures and loud music (including a somewhat controversial dance remix of Jerusalem, the opening bars of which raised a few sniggers from the crowd - "and did those hooves in 2012..."). Chris Roberts scuttled onto the stage and stood there like a nervous schoolboy as he said his piece but most of the LOCOG people were very confident, giving well rehearsed speeches with catchy soundbites such as "we want a compact games where athletes can compete and not commute".
The audience (which looked bigger than 500 people to me) seemed mixed in their views but I got the impression that the majority were reassured that there wouldn't be too much damage to the park. However, the subject of cost and legacy (the source of many people's objections) was mostly avoided - one chap from FOGP (who also happened to be a former KPMG economist) asked a very good question about the cost/benefit analysis and raised the issue of secrecy over the plans and KPMG's report. However, he never received a proper answer and quickly had his microphone taken away while Paul Deighton, LOCOG's chief executive, proclaimed that "LOCOG is a private business and doesn't have to share any information". This statement about LOCOG being privately funded (apparently to the tune of about 2 billion) reminded me of the Phantom's concern - what happens if they, as a private business, run out of money and botch the repairs to the park?
So, in conclusion, I'd say that they did a reasonable job of allaying people's fears over damage to the park but did very little to justify spending 12 million pounds on some nice pictures for TV and a potential children's play area.
P.S. The segment from the local news can be seen here.
Thanks Simon.
I worry about this 'private company' business. A private company playing with our cash? Hmmm.
Private companies usually have penalty clauses that give them harsh financial consequences for failing to deliver services on time. I would like to know what LOCOG's penalty would be if they fail to deliver the complete restoration of the park? Especially if they convenientl managed to go bust over the delivery of the actual games...
But I wasn't there (sadly. I really wanted to be...) and perhaps the presentation was convincing.
I was there - will try to get something up on my site by the end of the day; but the overall impression I had was that the LOCOG people were as frank and honest as they could be, Chris Roberts is Mayor Quimby out of the Simpsons and that the anti-using the Park squad gave a poor performance, the lot I sat next to tutted and harrumphed through the whole thing without asking any question.
I couldn't be there, so am relying on hearsay, but it doesn't seem that anyone asked about the archaeological damage - squashed barrows, horses up to their fetlocks in the tunnels, and the stuff that people don't know about.
I don't recall anyone asking about that, although the LOCOG people said they decided to have the stadium at the foot of the hill to avoid archaeological damage.
Thank you Phantom and all postees...!
I applied for tickets and was turned down on the grounds that it was over-subscribed and that I didn't count because I live just outside the borough, so it's good to get an idea of what went on...
I was there, so was auntie Beeb whose report covered the preamble, so what stood out for me, "they" all tried very hard to convince "us" that the well being of athletes were at the heart of the presiding with a "concentrated arena" (competitors not commuters is really a catchy phrase), a couple of lovely potential competitors came up on the stage to prove the point: LOCOG was working hand in hand with future champions.
The park will be partially closed from April-ish till August-ish with 2 weeks whole closure at the height of the summer (I think I go that right) bad news were not so easy to hear, slightly drowned. traffic : no problem, accommodation: honky-dory, rubbish : all under control, damage to the park: will be put back right even before re-opening, disruption to the autochtones : come on they were here to answer isn't that something?
I suppose, it was a job well done, and in all fairness they believed what they say.
I came out thinking, OK but not in my park.
853blog has summed it up well.
Although attendance was respectable the room was far from full up so I don't know why anyone was told it was oversubscribed. Council staff were still being invited to apply for tickets yesterday.
If people are being denied access because they live in Lewisham borough, then that's disgraceful. Paul, what have your Lib Dem colleagues in Lewisham's Blackheath ward done/said about this?
Here's my thoughts on what happened - some video will follow as soon as it finishes uploading.
853blog, this is the email I received from Greenwich Council...Be interesting to know if there were many others.
Thank you for your interest in the above event.
Due to overwhelming interest in the meeting, it has been over subscribed. As stated on the website, we have given priority to residents, groups and organisations from Greenwich.
As a result we are unable to offer you tickets to the event but would like to thank you for taking the time to register. I am sorry that we were not able to accommodate you on this occasion.
Kind regards,
Clare
Clare Chapman
Stakeholder Relations Officer
Communications Department
Town Hall
Wellington Street
London SE18 6PW
Tel: 020 8921 6191
Bod, you should have a word with your local councillors in Lewisham (they could be able to raise some kind of protest) and LOCOG.
My Greenwich Olympics consultation meeting post now contains a load of video from the event.
I had a ticket and was all set to go, unfortunately I got held up at work until 7pm, and by the time I left I had missed the proverbial boat. I sorely wished I'd been there, the BBC coverage was neutral and not particularly informative...
Just to add in my two penny worth:
1) Standards at the BBC are slipping. Anyone who was there saw that the BBC only interviewed people on the way in before they heard what the panel had to say - and then presented the views as if they were those of people who were exiting the event. The BBC also filmed the piece to camera (fronted by Adrian Wardle) before the meeting had began. But anyone sat near to where he filmed the piece as I was heard him pretend his report was AFTER the meeting!!!
2) LOCOG were very professional, honest, set out lots of updated information showing how they had taken on concerns eg about the flower bed.
3)NOGOE were poor. Very poor as others have said. One man made a complete tit of himself claiming that 6000 young people on their facebook site were against the games...only to be followed by one of those young people who said he had changed his mind and was backing the Games!
He wasn't alone.
This is the problem for NOGOE. they thrived on the void of information and created misinformation.
Now LOCOG are at last talking to people and setting out their plans everyone can see how NOGOE were just scaremongering in the early days and they are losing support.
4) As for Paul Webbewood's comments about people whouldnt have been told all tickets had gone as there were spare seats - lets have some common sense please!
Look at these boards and see how many people said they had applied for tickets but didnt turn up. Usual rules apply - give out free tickets lots of people dont use them and dont care they will go to waste as they didnt pay anything for them. Please dont create a conspiracy theory where there is none!
"Look at these boards and see how many people said they had applied for tickets but didnt turn up. Usual rules apply - give out free tickets lots of people dont use them and dont care they will go to waste as they didnt pay anything for them."
I object strongly to that remark. I got a ticket which I was all set up to use (having done considerable research on my arguments and quite prepared to speak up) but couldnt go because of illness. Other people "not bothering" were at their local A&E, held up at work or so on; all perfectly legitimate reasons. I live a LOOOOOONG way from Greenwich Park but I was more than prepared to go along and fight its corner. Its not a case of "not being bothered".
Please Phant, keep us all informed of any developments.
Fine - object.
You felt unwell in the morning and had all day to call the council to free up your tickets. But did you???
I'm sure far more people did just not bother to go as:
1) it seemed like a good idea at the time but not when the night came around
2) there was something good on the telly
3) it was too cold and they couldnt be bothered etc
Hence why I object to a Lib Dem Councillor insinuating that people were turned away when there were tickets spare.
If people knew they couldnt attend - they could have called the council and freed up their tickets.
How many who say they couldnt attend actually did that - including the Phantom!!
James, NOGOE have the better arguments. Deal with it.
LOCOG are on the back foot. Despite being extremely highly paid they were completely pole-axed by the question from the floor about the cost-benefit analysis that never was and the ridiculous secrecy attached to the KPMG report.
LOCOG have yet to explain where all the "horse infrastructure" is to go - the Park is too small.
LOCOG have said nothing about the protected species in the Park, protected by law from being disturbed.
Can we focus, please?! Discussions about people's lack of committment, failure to give up tickets etc. etc. are all secondary to the main issues.
Websites like this are invaluable to the genuine democratic process but so many people get turned off when so many threads disintegrate into rancour and the like.
LG
Latelygay, I reckon you're right. But if you "look at these boards" as James puts it, and check the numbers of those who had tickets and didn't attend it adds up to a teeny number. All you need is a James to stir ir up with just a bit of misinformation...hmmm
Nobody, as i've posted before, should EVER have had to have a ticket for what was a public meeting. Open to the...er....public. We should have been able to just show up.
I think we can easily discount old James....see-through. (LOCOG has jobs going, mate, as does Greenwich Time)
If Greenwich Council and LOCOG had wanted an open debate they would have organised an open public meeting not a choreographed affair designed, above all, to make a pretence of consultation, gather addresses of those attending (you couldn't get a ticket without giving that up)and to promote their misguided case.
I support 2012. I hate the bullheaded, irrational approach that has been taken to the foolish idea of using a plainly unsuitable venue for one of the events. It does not bode well....still, Merry Yule everybody....
"Look at these boards and see how many people said they had applied for tickets but didnt turn up. Usual rules apply - give out free tickets lots of people dont use them and dont care they will go to waste as they didnt pay anything for them"
Damn you - I got caustic in my eye and could have lost it but for the quick action of my colleagues and the wonderful care I got at Queen Elizabeth and Queen Mary's.
Damn you.
Sorry Phantom - that was a moment of genuine anger.
I reacted before I read the subsequent posts such as latelygay's. Please note that I am apologising to the Phantom and the general readership only, not to James.
However, if I had thought to phone Greenwich Council as my eye was being washed out with saline, do you really think that my tickets would have been reallocated in the time available? I don't....
Bod's point is of course correct - why should meetings like this be ticket-only?
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
I have to agree with James.
Others have said there were only small numbers of people who didn't make use of their tickets.
Well there are about 10 people on this thread that had tickets and 4 admit to not using them.
That's why James is right to point out that claims that people were turned away from the event when there were empty seats for under hand reasons are far from the mark.
I also find the lack of understanding of how to put on an event worrying.
Can you imagine the chaos if 1000s of people had attended the O2 arena without a ticket to get in. Can you imagine the frustration if you had arrived only to be told the venue was full.
The tickets were open to anyone to apply for. There is no problem with a ticket only event when tickets were open to all local residents on a first come first served basis.
And can you not see the irony of the NOGOE supporters who do not want extra traffic on our roads during Games time seemingly wanting lots of people travelling to the IndigO2 even if there were no spaces and causing congestion on our roads!
For what it is worth throw away lines like "NOGOE have the better arguments. Go deal." are just the kind of comments that turn people like me away from even listening to what NOGOE have to say.
Hmmm.... James, Janice.
I think we've been here before, don't you? Have you got some friends called Sam and Steve by any chance..?
As Cllr Webbewood has posted on this thread perhaps he can explain what the Liberal Democrat's views are on the Games.
You did not mention your position at the meeting (where you remained silent) or on these boards.
For the record can you tell us all please.
Rod - I do hope your eye is on the mend.
For the record I never had a ticket for this - I always knew I couldn't make it - a prior engagment that was non-moveable.
I am also rather pleased to see that LOCOG made a good fist. This may surprise some - but actually it seems to me that the most productive way of moving forward is to make sure that concerns are heard and addressed, rather than just hitting LOCOG head-on. It sounds as though they are beginning to walk on eggs and really deal with stuff. That's a good sign for all - whichever 'side' anyone's on.
Continuing to be a thorn in the side of LOCOG and forcing them to do the right thing by ecology/heritage/archaeology feels like a good thing to do. I genuinely wasn't able to get there on Thursday but that doesn't mean I don't care.
Thanks for your concern, Fanty.
My eye will, with time, be able to heal the damage that was done, so it won't be permanent. Hurts though......
Well, James I don't need to justify myself to you - you really are objectionable. I was held up at work! To attend the meeting, I had arranged a sitter. But I read 853blog's write-up with interest - thank you.
Here's something for James/Janice to think about. Greenwich Park is an untried venue - it has not been a venue for equestrian events, and by the time they start holding "dry runs" for 2012 it will be too late to move to another venue - and all the cross-country plans so far published depict a course that is almost all one tight loop after the other.
Last weekend, another untried venue in Cardiff saw an eventing disaster. The course for the inaugural Express Eventing International Cup at the Millennium Stadium was so twisting that most of the world's invited top 20 riders were eliminated, and the Olympic team horse, Call Again Cavalier, was killed. This was on the level, in a stadium, not on the grassy slopes of the Park. You can watch it on YouTube (Google "inaugural Express Eventing International Cup at the Millennium Stadium") - I can't bear to, it makes me feel sick to think about it.
Think about the possibility that the only legacy of Olympic 2012 events in the Park will be the memory of one or several beautiful horses having to be put down.
At Cardiff, too, they used portable cross-country fences, like those planned for the Park, one of which broke when a horse jumped into it rather than over it.
Oops, I meant to say Google "Call Again Cavalier", and at the moment the YouTube clip is the first result.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
On a previous post I commentated about the levels of genuine opposition to the Greenwich events. To bring it up to date:
Friends of Greenwich Park July 08: resolution (against events) passed by a large majority on a show of hands, from 'a good couple of hundred people".
Source - http://www.thegreenwichphantom.co.uk/2008/07/last-nights-meeting.html
Blackheath Society: resolution (against events) passed on a show of hands, 84 votes for, 42 votes against
Westcombe Society: resolution (against events)59 for, 71 against. (though it was 21 votes for, 7 against on the night)
Source - http://www.nogoe2012.com/local_opinion.aspx
LOCOG meeting at the Dome 4 Dec 08:
c500 attendees, of which it appears the vast majority were in favour of the events.
Source - http://853blog.wordpress.com/2008/12/05/last-nights-greenwich-olympics-consultation-meeting/
I make that, even allowing for generous double counting, at most 350 vociferous antis.
Thanks Indigo - it's bad enough that horses have to be put down because of unsuitable or badly designed courses, but it appears that a rider was recently killed too -
http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/competitionnews/article.php?aid=57999
Hope that link works. If not google Call Again Cavalier and scroll down.
Medics desperately trying to save the life of a young rider against the backdrop of the Old Royal Naval College is not a TV image any of us wants to see.
I'm no expert on equestrian events, but I suspect horses dying at events is not unique to new courses.
2 died at Badminton last year - http://www.badminton-horse.co.uk/history/news_archives/2007_event_news/horse_fatalities.aspx
Forgive my cynicism here, but I never realised we had so many passionate advocates of equine welfare in Greenwich and Blackheath. I trust this desire to see well-trained horses well looked after will continue up to and beyond 2012.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
To cynical 853blog, I never realised we had so many passionate advocates of equine welfare in Greenwich and Blackheath. I trust this desire to see well-trained horses well looked after will continue up to and beyond 2012.
You need to get out more. Brits love animals. Remember the row when the donkeys were nicked from outside the Park? Anyhow, living in a city how many opportunities are there to bring equine welfare naturally into the conversation? After you see the two police horses on Blackheath, perhaps?
RTB, I don't think that was a threat, simply an observation. Your comment is without doubt libelous unless you have evidence to back it up, and now it's been pointed out The Phantom will be at risk of legal action if s/he leaves it. I agree with your sentiments about Chris Roberts and Greenwich COuncil, who seem to see developers as their 'clients' rather than the people who live here, but that's a very specific allegation to make, which if it's wrong, invites repercussions. (And I know, I've had Carter Ruck on my trail in my daytime job. I wouldn't wish that on you, or the Phantom).
rtb
I made the comment about libel. I made it anonymously becuase I imagined it would detract from anything else I have to say and I made it because it is libellous and is liable to shut the site. I do not work for the council, nor have I ever even spoken to Chris Roberts. It's not a conspiracy.
Trouble is, Greenwich Labour party types tend to post here and elsewhere anonymously or under one-off psuedonyms like "stop moaning" or "the Tories lost again", which makes it very hard to have any kind of discussion with them.
Can't commont on the specific allegation about Cllr Roberts, but it's no secret that Greenwich Council does like to foster close relations with big developers like AEG and Berkeley Homes. It's this closeness which they have with LOCOG which helped fuel the air of distrust people have had about the games in the park.
Gosh....sorry Phantom, I didn't realise my little whine would lead to all this....all interesting. Though sometimes veering from the point a bit....Free speech in action I say. Good.
Back to specifics. Did anyone from LOCOG comment on the length or route of the course? I understood from the Westcombe News that the course proposed for Greenwich uses the shorter distance adopted at the Beijing Olympics which was criticised by the competitors.
Are they proposing to use the small lake in the flower garden as the water jump?(which is how it looks from the brochure)
I was unable to be at the O2 meeting, but at the Car Free Day consultation and the more recent consultation in the Tea Pavilion, I asked the question about the pond in the Flower Garden being used as the water jump, and on both occasions was told that, yes, it is planned for the pond to be the water jump.
The course will plough straight throught the Flower Garden and the pond.
The boating pond at the foot of the park will act as the other water jump.
I wonder about the Deer Enclosure - will the deer have to be removed so that it can be used for some other purpose, such as exercising horses or stabling?
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Please folks - no ad-hominum attacks. You write it - but I'm the one in the firing line...
Rob Thomas
1) Councillors had a chance to question LOCOG at a recent Council meeting. I didn't think it fair to try to ask another question at a public meeting. There were several Labour councillors in the audience who presumably took a similar view.
2) Our view on the Games - which we have stated at Council meetings - is that we would like to see as many events as possible in Greenwich but not at any cost.
I was initially very sceptical about holding the equestrian events on Greenwich Park but have become less so as time has gone on. I think the support of the Parks management is significant.
There are really two questions to ask:
1) Is Greenwich Park the best possible venue for the equestrian events?
2)Is it an acceptable venue for the equestrian events?
It might be that the answer to Q1 is no and the answer to Q2 is yes.
As a member of the Planning Board I will need to wait until we consider any application before reaching a final decision on this.
3) As someone else has already said, Woolwich Barracks would be an attractive venue for the shooting. However if it is going to cost up to £20 million just to erect and dismantle the facilities with no local legacy, and there is a possibility of a permanent venue somewhere equally deserving like Barking, then it is possible that we will have to let these events go.
However there is still more we need to know about both Woolwich and North Greenwich Arena 2 before a final decision can be made.
I attended and took a few notes:
LOCOG
One of the LOCOG speakers was dire (James Bulley) who at one point got into a description of what was inside shotgun shells. Like anybody cared. He was a very boring speaker, perhaps intended to run out the clock and reduce one's will to remain (or even live).
Q and A was to start at 8:00pm, but only got going at 8:30pm. Given that they must have practiced, and it was only a 2-hour event, this sort of shoddy timekeeping is (a) inexcusable, and (b) probably intentional.
A second LOCOG speaker (Tim Hadaway) clearly had facts and passion and belief. I took comfort from most of what he said. But, instead of saying, "No trees will be cut down" he said that, "It won't be necessary to cut any trees down." Too much like weasel words to obtain complete comfort with the proposition. [So, while it may not prove to be "necessary", it might prove to be "prudent" or "convenient"...]
Hadaway also mentioned that some kids in Eltham have just completed a first course in horse riding... apparently linked to the 2012 events in Greenwich Park. I presume that they'll follow these lessons with funding for a stable of horses and the facilities to make it a viable Olympic legacy instead of just some transitory, self-serving advertising?
A few other observations:
Chris Roberts
His 15-minute slot was mostly consumed with running two DVDs, interspersed with some self publicity (no change there, then). One of the DVDs also referred to the 10,000 new homes on the Peninsula. Oh really, Chris? When would that be? Exactly how many decades after the Olympics have left London?
And Anschutz is bringing ahead plans to deliver a 650-room hotel in order to accommodate the Games. How good for them, and what a great way to counter resident opposition.
And he finished with a heart-rending (not) story about a young boy in Sheffield who was inspired to be an Olympian because of track events held in his home town. And that boy was Seb Coe. {sniffle}
By the way: the most complaints received by Chris Roberts apparently relate to youths hanging around aimlessly at street corners. Hence, by supporting the Olympics in Greenwich this problem will go away because the kids will all be training. [I'm a big proponent of making sports facilities available to all... but let's get real here]
Starting Blocks
Roberts also took the opportunity to dole out money from the Starting Blocks charity to half a dozen young athletes. I'm not sure that leveraging young people and a charity for personal political advantage at a commercial event (after all, LOCOG is privately funded) is moral.
Stephen Omole & Zoe Smith
These two young people presented themselves well, but one was left with the impression that they were press-ganged into their participation.
And Stephen, as ex-pupil of John Roan, said that he shared concerns about the use of the Park and the trees, because the memory of them held a special place in his heart because of memories of his time at John Roan. Nice of Greenwich Council to be moving the school to the Peninsula then... giving future generations asthma and fond memories of the A102 and sugar refining instead?
Anyhow, despite initial misgivings, I was swayed by Tim Hadaway's talk. He said that the Park will be completely closed only from the end of July 2012 until the end of August 2012, and this mostly for security concerns. [Reasonable enough]
Various areas of the Park will be closed as preparations progress (especially down by Queen Anne's House). Re: Queen Anne's - LOCOG made a point of mentioning that that area had been turned to use as allotments during the war i.e. establishing a precedent for employing it for something special in 2012.
The cross-country event will last just five hours only, on a single day. Otherwise, all Olympic activity will be confined to the arena-area by Queen Anne's House.
So, having attended, I don't object to the plans for Greenwich Park as I may have done before. On the other hand, I'm inclined to thing I've been seduced more by spin than by substance.
Many thanks to Fooling Me Again - a very informative post.
However, with respect, I utterly fail to see how turning parts of the park into allotments during the Second World War creates any kind of meaningful precendent for the Olympics. Sorry LOCOG.
I think it is important to clairfy two points here:
1) Anyone attending the meeting saw that LOCOG put forward revised plans following input from residents.
The outcome of this is that THE POND IN THE FLOWER GARDEN WILL NOT BE USED AS A WATER JUMP unlike Rod says.
2) To loud applause a guarantee was given THAT NO TREE WILL BE CUT DOWN MATURE OR OTHERWISE in the question and answer session.
Fooling Me Again forgot to mention that in his post.
Having asked for this I'm now a bit overwhelmed, weary and, I regret to say none the wiser.
The pond will/won't be used. Trees may/may not be cut. The park will/will not be closed/open for x weeks/months Santa does/doesn't exist...
LOCOG - you must be monitoring this blog. Here's an idea - put a detailed, or as detailed as possible press release out. Factual only - no competitors not commuters, no other guff. Just the facts as they stand just now. Please. I dare you. Send it to all the local media and to the Phantom. S/he may or may not choose to spread it.Your Greenwich Park booklet doesn't do the job - now get on with it so I can get some sleep.
JG
"The outcome of this is that THE POND IN THE FLOWER GARDEN WILL NOT BE USED AS A WATER JUMP unlike Rod says."
If you read what I wrote, it is clear that I was relating what I was told at two previous consultation meetings.
I am extremely glad that the LOCOG have listened to residents' concerns and changed their plans accordingly. Obviously.
Oh,and say hello to James for me.
I attended (applied for ticket online when Phantom first drew it to our attention).
Yes, there was a lot of pro Olympic spin and there were some fancy videos that did not tell us much. But I was anti the equestrian event in the park before I went, based largely on the hearsay about park closures and damage, and am now pro. (though admittedly am still cynical about impact on transport while the various events take place around Greenwich).
I was pretty unimpressed by the pantomime hissing of the NOGOE contingent, just behind me, who failed to ask a single question. They handed out a leaflet at the end which left them looking pretty stupid as the allegations in it had been largely refuted.
Despite the LOCOG spin, we got some detail about how LOCOG think the equestrian event will work. One important thing to note is that plans are not yet finalised. The planning application will be submitted in Spring 09 and there will be public consultation in the run up to the application.
The (temporary) arena will be on the lawn just south of the Queen's House (i.e. at the flat area at the bottom of the hill, in the park). The majority of support buildings will also be to the bottom of the park (just west of the gates).
The arena will be used on more than one day, but the cross country course will only be used on 1 day (and then only over a five hour period) when 75 horses will complete it.
We were also given various assurances
1. Chris Roberts (Greenwich Council) stated categorically "we will not allow damage to our venues"
2. The pond in the flower garden will not be used as a water jump.
3. The course will be carefully set out so as to avoid damage to trees and the park generally. (And I understand the word "avoid" to mean to prevent from happening).
3. No trees, mature or otherwise, will be cut down.
4. The majority of the park will remain open during 2012 except during the two weeks of the Olympics when it will be completely shut. The area housing the arena and supporting buildings will be closed off for longer, of course but other than that only other small areas of the park may be roped off to allow for erection of cross-country and other equipment. All in all they expect partial closures to affect the park between April and August 2009.
One final NB, the plans are not yet finalised so don't forget to WATCH THE LOCAL PRESS for details of when the public consultation is going to take place re the planning application.
Thanks for the post, Lizzie - informative for those of us who were unable to attend.
"The pond in the flower garden will not be used as a water jump." This is evidence that the LOCOG are listening to what people are saying at consultation meetings and making changes as a result, and this is a very good thing.
"The course will be carefully set out so as to avoid damage to trees and the park generally. (And I understand the word "avoid" to mean to prevent from happening).
No trees, mature or otherwise, will be cut down."
If this means (if) that mature trees are not going to have lower limbs pruned in a way that would weaken or traumatise them, then that is further evidence that they are hearing what people are saying. If....
Was anything specifically said about drastic pruning of mature trees?
Overall, this is encouraging, because they certainly did, at one stage, plan to cut the trees along Romney Rd down, and they certainly did, as recently as the consultation in the Tea Pavilion, intend to use the pond in the Flower Garden as a water jump.
If consultation is working as it should and issues are being aired with a result that decisions are being changed so as to address those issues, then fine. But we must keep up the pressure.
Finally,I know this is a side issue, but what arrogance of Cllr Roberts to say "We will not allow damage to our venues", as if the Park belonged to the Council.
Lizzie - if we had a quick chat about possible council plants, you will have been sat behind me...
the chief hisser is now on my blog :-)
Having followed this for the past few days, I still don't see where NOGOE can go from here, really. Their argument doesn't add up to much more than "don't believe LOCOG, they're lying" - I'd like to hear something more substantial than that.
but what arrogance of Cllr Roberts to say "We will not allow damage to our venues", as if the Park belonged to the Council
You could say the same of NOGOE, of course.
Wondered if it would be possible to get in touch with author of the first article in
"Banging On About Greenwich Park Again" (published on 09/06/08) via emeiling me an follow-up comment? S/he is passionate about saving trees and can write much better than I can. I would like to unite the forces, if I may say so. Thanks
Hey Gintare - I'll take that as a compliment, since this blog is all written by me.
frankly there are N follow-ups on this blog about the park - I rarely stop worrying about it. What's your angle?
Last summer I found out from tenants who went to neighbourhood panel meeting about Greenwich Councils decision to cut six trees of about eighty years of age, in Bardsley, Haddo, Topnham Estate because it is cheaper than to prune them every year...I thought this is rather preposterous idea, providing the estate is surrounded by busy Church Street, Creek Road, train station and fences with pavement can not perform photosynthesis in dealing with CO2 emission. So I started writing emails to Council, who had "stuck on stupid" attitude the whole time and continue to get the project ready. Then I went to Local Councilors Surgery and e-mailed to ministry of Agriculture and other societies I found by Googling for help in influencing this Councils decision. They all "brushed me off", hence it is not their constituency, if local authority has taken decision. By now I am out of bullets and rather tired, so fishing for more ways to collaborate with someone in this battle... Trees take years to grow. One has to be rather ignorant to take decision cutting them.
Do you have any gun powder?
Hey Gintare - perhaps you could email me your letter to the council?
what is your email address?
It's the contact me button up the side. but for ease now, it's thegreenwichphantom@gmail.com
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home