Olympic Proposals
A couple of weeks ago, Andrew Gilligan took on the arduous task of reading the gigantic planning application that LOCOG have submitted to the council.
Rod tells me that he received a letter with the details of the proposal. It was dated 11th December, and Rod was rather alarmed to see that objections and other comments need to be submitted within 28 days of the date of the letter.
So far, Rod tells me that inter alia twenty responses have been received by the council, including five 'for' and fifteen 'against.' I think a few more responses than that are going to be needed for the council to have much say in the matter.
It's a bad time of year and an unwieldy document. But although the issue isn't going to go away soon, the opportunity to comment is...
Rod tells me that he received a letter with the details of the proposal. It was dated 11th December, and Rod was rather alarmed to see that objections and other comments need to be submitted within 28 days of the date of the letter.
So far, Rod tells me that inter alia twenty responses have been received by the council, including five 'for' and fifteen 'against.' I think a few more responses than that are going to be needed for the council to have much say in the matter.
It's a bad time of year and an unwieldy document. But although the issue isn't going to go away soon, the opportunity to comment is...
posted by The Greenwich Phantom at
08:14
15 Comments:
You need to write to Fred Brown
Directorate of Regeneration, Enterprise and Skills,
Crown Building,
5th Floor,
48 Woolwich New Rd.,
London
SE18 6HQ
His e-mail address is
fred.brown@greenwich.gov.uk
I know it's Christmas (crafty of them, that, isn't it?) but please drop Mr Brown a quick letter. I'm sure it doesn't have to be a long reasoned statement of all the factors that give us such grave concern - just object.
If you haven't read Gilligan's piece, try to - because the projected numbers of lorry movements, with attendant cranes, bulldozers, etc, with the inevitable damage to the Park and disruption to Town Centre traffic, would be enough on its own to make me object.
I have both emailed and sent a letter, and will ask all my fellow neighbours / Greenwich residents / Attendees at British Military Fitness to write as well. I will prob get them to each sign an similar letter and send them in bulk.
Thanks Rod,
I will send my letter of support to Fred Brown.
Happy Christmas to all Phantom Fans.
Paul
Yes, I got my letter from Greenwich Council at the weekend - just in time for Christmas.
Is four weeks even a remotely adequate consultation time for something which could have an enormous impact on our area. Hardly.
Blame LOCOG not the Council. They have chosen to submit the planing application at this time of year and the consultation periods and time in whcih planning applications should be determined are standard and outside LBGs control
Paul
"Thanks Rod,
I will send my letter of support to Fred Brown."
I imagine that you think that's rather witty.....
Let's see who's laughing in 2010 - my guess? Nobody.
Apalling traffic problems, damage to the Park and it's ecology from earthmovers, cranes and bulldozers, damage to Town Centre tourist trade, impassable congestion on the days of the events themselves.....
Seb Coe might raise a smile, but I doubt that anyone who actually lives in Greenwich will
I've emailed my comments. Thanks for the heads up TGP.
Thank you for that Rod, chalked up another one for the "in favour" pile.
I know I'm risking starting World War III on here, but to see the other side of the argument please read LOCOG's response to Gilligan's piece.
http://www.greenwich.co.uk/news/02415-locog-respond-to-andrew-gilligan/
I have objected to the application. Up to now I have been happy to keep an open mind on the proposals until such time as we saw what they were actually going to be, and while I've been disappointed with the lack of interaction by LOCOG with the local community it was always clear that we would see the real picture when this application was made.
Unfortunately that application almost completely undermines the PR spin LOCOG have put on their plans: 6800 trucks will mean chaos for the local area, tearing up the grass and fencing off the areas will mean a massive reduction in our access to the park for most of the 3 year period, and the cynical nature of the late application at Christmas time shows how little respect they have for the local population.
I am really aware of Nimbyism, and I was determined not to unilaterally object to the proposal just because it's across the road in the park, but reading through the application was a complete eye opener.
I've never understood why LOCOG didn't take it to one of the existing equestrian locations, which were all hoping to play host, but it just seems clear now that someone made this decision a long time ago and was determined to ram it through, locals be damned.
I don't really have much faith in the Council to push back against the application, but then I didn't think they would with the market/hotel complex either, so at least there is some hope. We've just got to do our bit and make our voices heard, and remind the counsellors that there is an election just around the corner...
Rod,
"Seb Coe might raise a smile, but I doubt that anyone who actually lives in Greenwich will"
Please don't assume that all of Greenwich thinks the Olympics is a bad idea. And if I am not mistaken, there is currently a major contruction project being undertaken in the park, with attendant cranes, bulldozers etc which haven't exactly blighted the town. And as for damage to Town Centre tourist trade - I'd bet good money that the TV shots from the observatory will become one of the iconic images of the Games, providing a worldwide advert for Greenwich.
Gilligan is a journalist who by nature will always try to highlight the extremes to support their viewpoint.
Yes, there will be short-term disruption, but I believe the event and long term positives will far out-weigh them in the long-run.
yeah yeah hobbit, back off to middle earth with you. Rod like you is entitled to voice his opinion.
"Please don't assume that all of Greenwich thinks the Olympics is a bad idea."
I do not assume that - I know perfectly well that there are plenty of turkeys voting for Christmas.
"And if I am not mistaken, there is currently a major contruction project being undertaken in the park, with attendant cranes, bulldozers etc which haven't exactly blighted the town."
Well, it's only just started, so we'll have to see, won't we? The numbers of heavy vehicle movements projected for the stadium construction can only have a disastrous effect on an already overloaded town centre. A small amount of roadworks in Nelson Rd brings the place to a standstill.
"And as for damage to Town Centre tourist trade - I'd bet good money that the TV shots from the observatory will become one of the iconic images of the Games, providing a worldwide advert for Greenwich."
All the evidence shows that tourists avoid locations hosting these events on the basis that everywhere will be booked, overpriced etc. That summer the Park will be closed, which removes one major attraction. People interested in the equestrian events will come for the day, attend the events and go home without spending much, if any, money in Greenwich itself. Same as happens on Marathon day - town centre businesses have one of their worst Sundays of the year. Only people interested in the Marathon come to Greenwich that day and leave once the race has passed through. Everyone else avoids the place.
As for those iconic shots, which are used again and again to justify this whole sorry business - how can anybody say the expense, lack of heritage, disruption and damage to a World Heritage Site can be excused for a few 5 second cut-away shots in the middle of the afternoon when no-one is watching an extremely minority sport? Greenwich doesn't need to be put on the map - it's been there for a long time.
"Yes, there will be short-term disruption, but I believe the event and long term positives will far out-weigh them in the long-run."
Once again, it is apparent that the pro lobby don't actually have an arguement - they just keep saying that the Games will be good for Greenwich, in the belief that if the mantra is repeated often enough prople will come to accept it as true.
As for the "event" - there is no confirmation, despite the question being asked several times, that local people will have access to affordable tickets. And are you actually a fan of dressage anyway?
You talk about betting good money - well how aout this? Tomorrow afternoon we'll walk round all the pubs in Greenwich town centre and Royal Hill, you and me, and see if we can find one single person who can actually explain in reasonable detail what dressage is all about, how it is scored, what the judges look for etc. Fifty quid cash says we don't find anybody.
"long term positives" - there isn't going to be any legacy. Even the Environmental Impact analysis accepts this.
Sorry - course there's going to be legacy. They're upgrading the kid's playground. How did I forget that?
Hobbit - you sound like you could be a Council/LOGC stooge to me, but never mind.
Gilligan is a journalist who by nature will always try to highlight the extremes to support their viewpoint.
Why are you assuming that this is anything to do with Gilligan? He's just one G'wich resident, and the rest of us are more than capable of making our own minds up, thank you very much.
Yes, there will be short-term disruption, but I believe the event and long term positives will far out-weigh them in the long-run.
"Event" - even Zara Phillips thinks G'wich Park is unsuitable and she knows more about it than you do.
"Long term positives" - even Sir Steven Redgrave thinks the legacy aspect of the 2012 Games is shortsighted and inadequate.
But still the same old "arguments" keep being trotted out.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home