Deadlines, Deadlines...

Just a quickie to let you know that when Kirsty complained that the deadline for comments about the Olympic Greenwich Park proposals was actually before the date she received the letter about it, she was informed that it has been extended to 27th January, so there's still time to have your two penn'orth.

As Michael Caine wouldn't say, not many people know that...

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...

Scary Olympic Stats

Blimey. I'm not going to reinvent the wheel here, but send you straight over to Andrew Gilligan's analysis of the figures in the Council's planning applications documents for a pre-Christmas scare.

Of course Gilligan's going to be looking out for the really frightening stuff, but it would seem he's found plenty of it already - and he's not finished ploughing his way through the tomes yet...

2012 Greenwich Park Tour

Strange, isn't it what you find when you're not looking for it. I've been trying to work out how the hell to embed video into the blog for some time (it was more difficult than it might at first appear since this site isn't quite what it seems technically, despite its Blogger shell...) but it was when trying to work out how to do something completely different that the penny dropped and I THINK I can now present most videos (not all, sadly, Stevie - sorry!)

So, as a test, to see if I really can put video content up here, today I present this for you, courtesy of a tip from the ever-splendid Deptford Dame, without comment:

Equestrian Comments

I'm sure I'm not the only person to have got a letter from Gareth Bacon at the London Assembly, asking for people's comments about the Equestrian Events at the 2012 Olympics. I can only assume that it is a result of local pressure - especially from NOGOE.

Now is our chance to say what's on our minds - whether for or against.

If you haven't received a form for comments, you can get one by contacting liz.thompson@london.gov.uk

Now is our moment...

For Bod

Bod is sad I haven't opened a discussion on last night's meeting. Well - here's my confession. I wasn't there. I had a prior engagement that just wasn't going away.

So - tell me - was it a bunfight? Did anything good get done/said?

Roll Up, Roll Up - Get Your Olympic Consultation Tickets Here!

For those of you who have been a bit alarmed by the seeming inability of LoCOG to get their story straight (so are those trees' lower branches for the chop or not, then..?) then the Public meeting to discuss all Olympic and Paralympic activity in the borough between 7pm-9pm on Thursday 4th December is a bit of a must.

It's to be at the Indigo, at the O2 - which is, ironically, now the only one of the three original venues in Greenwich (and the only one that actually seemed suitable IMHO, being a purpose-built entertainments area with excellent public transport and infrastructure) not to be employed any more.

It's a ticketed event, but the tickets are free. Lizzie wrote to get some and passed the link onto me. Because not all of you can get hyperlinks, here it is in full:

http://greenwicholympics.cvent.com/meeting

While we're about it, if you missed Andrew Gilligan's article about the KPMG findings last week, it's worth taking a peek.

LOCOG events

I've just found out about the 'presence' (their words, not mine) of LoCOG at the Pavillion Tea Rooms tomorrow (Friday 21st November) and Saturday. It's too late to stick it in the Parish News and be sure it's seen in time so it's on the main blog.

To be honest timing seems a bit vague - I think it's from 2pm but can't be sure from what I've been sent.

What IS interesting is this, though:

"Greenwich Council are organising a public meeting to discuss all Olympic and Paralympic activity in the borough between 7pm-9pm on Thursday 4th December at the Indigo at the O2 Centre with Seb Coe, Cllr Chris Roberts, and a panel of experts to answer your queries. It is a ticketed event, but tickets are free, and they are obtainable from clare.chapman@greenwich.gov.uk tel 0208 921 6191."

We need to keep up the pressure, guys. We'll never be able to prove that the Olympic organisers would have been as careful as they could be without concerned groups and individuals forcing their hands but making as much noise as possible will hopefully bring enough attention to the issue that they will be obliged to do the right thing.

From what I heard yesterday on the news, they're still determined to keep the equestrian events in the park. It's our job to make it hard for them to mess up. To keep our eyes so firmly set upon those in charge that they don't do sneaky things like setting up two companies - the first one to 'deliver' the Olympics, the second to 'clear up afterwards' (guess which one goes to the wall when they go over budget...) To make sure that Royal Parks don't lose their nerve and cave in to pressure over heritage, envirnomental and cultural matters when dates get close and tempers get hot. To never let them get away with ANYTHING that will damage our park.

No Decisions Yet

Theresa has just directed me to Andrew Gilligan's article in the Evening Standard from about a week ago, which reminds us that no decision has been formally made to hold the Equestrian events at Greenwich Park. It had always been said that it would be a mere formality for the London Olympic Board to rubber-stamp the siting of the games, but some members wanted more time to think about it.

They certainly can't use the excuse that it was 'promised' to the IOC - after all, they've just moved the gymnastics, which would have been held at the O2, and which I was actually looking forward to (I'm not against holding events in Greenwich - just the inappropriate ones) to Wembley.

At least the London Olympic Board are now thinking long and hard over this. If that means that we still get the events, but LOCOG are forced to be extra careful and not to damage anything, then I will consider that a victory.

I don't care about being called a scaremonger. I consider it the job of anyone who cares about the park to force those in charge of the Olympics to do the right thing and look to the future. Even if that future means that the legacy we'd get from the Olympics is literally nothing. Nothing damaged, nothing lost.

It's important to keep talking about this - while the issue is current, then everyone - whether on the side of having the events at Greenwich or not, is thinking about it. And while everyone's thinking about it, LOCOG will have to be at least seen to care.

For your delight and delectation, Phantom Good Friend Simon has created a calendar of 'consultations' about the events. Let's hope that they'll actually be taking opinions at these, as opposed to the Car-Free Day version...

Changing Places

From the lunchtime news, and from this article Russell sent me it would seem cash-strapped 2012 officials are considering moving some of the Olympic venues in Greenwich.

But before the park protestors pop any champagne corks, perhaps I should point out that it's the benign gymnastics and badminton tent that's being given the boot - the one that practically no one objected to, not the events that could potentially cause Greenwich park some damage.

The badminton and gym were to have been held in a temporary arena beside the 02 (why aren't they using the 02 itself?) It would have been pretty good - a currently unused site with good transport links and in an area where they couldn't do much more damage to it if they tried. I was actually looking forward to that bit of the London Olympics.

These events are not relocating inside the O2, which would keep it all in the area originally intended, but to Wembley.

Call me a cynic, but this couldn't possibly be because the back of a tent on Greenwich Peninsula wouldn't have made much of a TV backdrop and "saving money" (which is admittedly about forty million) by going to glamorous Wembley will please the world's media, could it? By that jaundiced view, I guess if they were to save some real cash by relocating the Equestrian events to somewhere actually set up for them, they'd have to answer to the TV companies...

The one interesting thing that comes out of this is that when LOCOG tell us that since venues were 'promised' at the Olympic bid, they're somehow set in stone and cannot be changed, they're just not telling the truth...

Equestrian Consultation

Simon's told me that the first of the 'consultations' about the Olympics is to be this Sunday at the Car Free day. He says "I reckon they'll play it one of two ways - either fanfares, flags and "Yay! Won't it be great!" to try and brainwash people or a display at the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard'."

Well, whatever - at least this will be the first opportunity to tell people face to face what we think, whatever we think.

http://www.london2012.com/news/consultations/greenwich-park.php

More Equestrian Stuff

Laura's just sent me a link to Andrew Gilligan's feature in the Standard today about the Equestrian events at the 2012 Olympics. Just passing it on, folks...

The Phantom Rants AGAIN...

Anyone seen that rather odd article in Time Out this week where they, somewhat spuriously IMHO, postulate on what would happen if the Olympics were cancelled? (What next, I wonder - "What would happen if London had a plague of toads, the Thames ran blood or the Martians landed..?")

The article, a featherweight piece clearly borne of the silly season, doesn't really seem to address the issue at all - with many of the movers and shakers interviewed not seeming to be directly answering the question, making me suspect it was cobbled together out of a bunch of old interviews. The equestrian events in Greenwich Park - the one place that many actually WANT to see stopped - isn't mentioned at all. Not once.

Interestingly though, one of the talking heads is Chris Roberts. "It doesn't worry me," he boasts. "We're taking responsibility for the legacy as a borough. Councils must remember, after 2012 there won't be an Olympic Delivery Authority or London Organising Committee, so it's up to them and the residents."

Darn tootin,' Chris. The very fact that they know damn well that they won't exist after 2012 gives bodies like the ODA and the LOCOG no incentive whatsoever to create anything that will last beyond 2012. They will be expecting the councils and the government to clear up their mess as they plough through anything and everything to get their own goals achieved.

So what if a few trees get uprooted? We gave you a good Olympics. I know we said that we had 'no plans' to cut down trees or dig massive holes - but ain't you heard of Contingency, mate? It got to the eleventh hour and they had to come down. It's a shame and all that, but - well - you wanted the Olympics. You can grow some more. We delivered it for you on time. So what if there's no legacy? Not our problem, mate. All you asked us to do was get you to the ball, Cinderella. We got you there. Now it's struck midnight; the party's over. You find your own Prince Charming. We're off to collect our fat cheques and then going on a well-earned holiday. Sweep up that glass from that shattered slipper, will you, eh..?

There's a protest rally this Sunday in the park, organised by the Facebook group Stop The Olympics Destroying Greenwich Park. Meeting at 2.00pm at Blackheath Gate, expect a lot of angry people. I tend to be of the opinion that even if you hold the milder view that if the Equestrian events are going to happen inthe park, they must be heavily-regulated, it's worth going along. Bargaining is always about asking for more than you actually want, so you can concede small points to get big ones....

Scatty Phantom

Sorry folks - I've lost something - and for the life of me I can't remember who sent it...

It was a magazine interview with the course designer of the Equestrian events for the Olympics, Sue Benson. I read it, but now can't find it to pass on.

Anyone know the article?

Sorry about this - I didn't realise that virtual offices could become as untidy as real ones My cyber intray is as overflowing as my earth-bound one...

:-(

Last Night's Meeting...

...of the FoGP.

Ok - so who was there? Hands up - I wasn't. But Noel was and he notes:

"A good couple of hundred people in a hot lecture theatre in Greenwich Uni.. One comment from a local Labour Councillor left me in no doubt that there will be no support from the Council whatsoever (call that representation? how do these jokers ever get elected?).

The decision really seemed to be about whether you trusted the Authorities not to do something stupid, or not. Unsurprisingly most seemed not to trust them. LOCOG have allowed 'myths' to circulate due to their lack of communication so it will be interesting to see whether these stirrings will make any difference to that.

Actually as someone pointed out, it was classic white English middle-class stuff. Everyone being keen to point out how well meaning, if slightly misguided, everyone else was. All jolly polite, and it would have been entirely unsurprising if we had suddenly broken for an interval of cups of tea and cucumber sandwiches. Needed a bit more of the Swampy element to really rattle the authorities I think."

What do YOU think? Are the promises we've had so far from LOCOG enough to let us relax - or do we need to actually see physical plans?

Don't forget that there will be an extraordinary general meeting of the Westcombe Society on Saturday morning. It's members-only - so get joining now if you want to attend.

A number of you have been asking where to find different bits of the debate we've been having here - so here are the most interesting threads on the Phantom:

General

My Letter to Boris

Promises, Promises

Early Days

What's at Stake

House of Lords Debate

Cautiously Good News

Laura has just sent me a link to today's Standard.

Do you reckon we count as part of the "unprecedented levels of opposition?'

Rock on...

Mark has found the press release for us.

I'm cautiously welcoming this, but I still think we need to keep a beady eye on things.
What do you think, guys?

The Phantom Gets a Reply From Boris...

...or not, as the case may be. As expected, I got a minion, sending me the email equivilant of a xeroxed reply to my letter about the Equestrian Events in Greenwich Park. I repeat it verbatim:

To whom it may concern

Thank you for contacting the Mayor regarding the use of Greenwich Park for the London 2012 Olympic Equestrian events. However the selection of 2012 sporting venues is solely the responsibility of London's Organising Committee for the Olympic Games (LOCOG) with the agreement of the International Olympic Committee. The Mayor is aware of your concerns about the Park and has asked me to pass them on to LOCOG.

Pathetic. Absolutely pathetic - hand-washing to the Nth degree.

Honestly. I don't know how much more hands-off this new mayor can get short of hot-footing it back to Henley and using a rubber-stamp on the end of a very long pole.

House of Lords Debate

Paul posted elsewhere on the blog this transcription from a debate held in the House of Lords yesterday about the Olympics, and it makes worthwhile reading, if only for the complacency held by some on the "Oh, it will be ok, let's just let them get on with it and every thing will be fine, I'm sure," stance.

We can't just 'wait and see.' IF the games can be held without significant damage, I'm fine with it. I have no objection in principle - I even rather like the idea. But if it means harming one of these ancient chestnuts, smashing through one ancient conduit or thundering over one ancient barrow (accidentally or otherwise) I'm at the barricades.

I noticed one well-meaning peer (Lord Addington) suggesting that "if we lose the odd tree, we plant two instead?"

Erm, despite numerous pleas by The Phantom, Homebase still doesn't sell 300 year-old trees planted by Charles II. I will continue to lobby Dobbies (nice rhyme, huh) to get some in stock, but until they do, that's going to be a problem. We're stuck with the ones we've got.

Something that also very slightly bothers me is the attitude of some of The Friends of Greenwich Park who are mentioned here as "an important community group" (which they are - I usually have a huge amount of time for them; they're one of my fave local associations.) Lord Oldham states that the group "seems satisfied that the site can be constructed," but I have had several emails from FoGP members who are anything but happy about this. Are they too taking the 'oh-I'm-sure-it-will-be-fine" stance too?

Ok - maybe this is getting hysterical. But we fail to ask questions, and ask them big now, at our peril. Just waiting and seeing is not good enough for me.

Am I getting tedious here? Ok. I'll shut up for a few days...

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...

Greenwich Park Update

Good Grief - it' sonly Monday and I'm already harping on about the old chestnuts again...

Richard was one of the furious scribblers last week. He wrote to Greenwich Council (no reply so far) and Derek Spurr at Royal Parks - who (top marks for speedy replies) writes:

"Thank you for your message regarding Greenwich Park and in particular Olympic events, I will reply in the same order as set out by you.

Our role in the 2012 events is to provide the stage and to ensure that the park is protected, the 2012 organisers are putting on the show. We will not agree to the removal or damage to trees and we will want to be assured that the park is returned back to us in the condition it was at the commencement of the event.

It will be up to the event organisers to ensure that the site is suitable for its use, the official equestrian bodies at international level have indicated thus far that it is.

The Council's role is more strategic, ours is more of a local concern -as Venue Managers.

I am not in a position to confirm the plans as these are still being developed by the 2012 organisers. The plans, set out in the original Candidature File give an indication of the site, as seen at the submission stage, this may vary, but we have not seen any revised submission so far.

The closure programme will become clearer once the organisers have finalised the event plans, we will want the closure period to be as short as possible and to keep sections open, if possible throughout.

No tree will be destroyed, we will want both the trees as the root zones protected this along with other important features, we have made our position clear in this regard."

This is encouraging stuff. But we mustn't let our guard down. The Olympic juggernaut at full pelt is a furious beast indeed. We need to be there to support people like Derek Spurr and to make sure that his position is not compromised or weakened by people in a certain govenment department who may decide to put sport and media before culture.

For those of you who have been asking about the petition,

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/GreenwichOlympic/

should get you there. Katie, who sent me the link, reminds people that you have to click on the email that they send you back *before* you have officially signed the petition (she nearly closed the window without realising…)

Dear Boris...

Well, I said I'd copy you in...


Dear Boris Johnson

It's occurred to me that a bungle has occurred. It wasn't your fault - this happened long before you came on the scene - but you could help sort it out. In fact, you sort of need to, because the people who dug themselves into this hole are way too deep in it to admit they were wrong - and without someone like yourself who can come in wearing big boots and kick up a fuss, giving them an elegant way out, we could be headed for a real problem.

The thing is, that back in the days when the Olympics were just a few scribbles on a fag-packet, it seemed like a really good idea to bung most of the shebang in Stratford and the North East of London. When it came to the Equestrian stuff, though, somehow the new Olympic Park just wasn't going to cut it.

Then some bright spark came up with the idea of using Greenwich Park. "Oooooh yes," said everyone. "That will be pretty. All those TV shots of Wren's Naval buildings and the Queen's House with vigorous, thrusting Canary Wharf in the background and the Cutty Sark's rigging silhouetted against the setting sun over the Thames. They'll bring in the cash. Lovely. OK. Done. We'll never get the games anyway - let's just put that down on the application and move onto the beach volleyball..."

Then it all happened. I was at the Old Royal Naval College the day they announced we'd won. And people were - and still are - genuinely pleased to see the games happening in London.

Trouble was, that now these blue-sky thinkers were suddenly faced with the problem of actually trying to fit the Equestrian Quart into the Pint Pot of Greenwich Park. No one could back down 'cause that's what they'd promised and by now the TV companies were slavering.

Mutterings and mumblings began. From a few of us locals to start with - not really being able to see how it would all fit in, but, perhaps naively, assuming that it had all been thought-out. But then it started from the athletes themselves. They were concerned that the size of the park would not allow for a proper course to be lain out, especially the cross-country.

So there we were having worried about whether it can be fitted in around all the 300-year old trees, Anglo-Saxon tumuli, Roman remains and Victorian layout - and there they were not seeming to think that it could be fitted in at all - even if all our unique natural, cultural and historical features were chopped out of the equation.

We have to face up to facts - Greenwich Park is just too darn small for the Olympics. Or at least the cross-country events.

But by now, the Olympic Authorities had painted themselves into the proverbial corner. They would lose face if they lost the Royal Park and went to somewhere suitable - and already built, tried and tested - such as Badminton. or Hickstead. Badminton is the athletes' choice - it would be my choice too, if having the games meant losing our park. Already, alarming reports of the Park being closed for 18 months before the event (and presumably a similar amount of time afterwards too) are gaining momentum. That's not someone putting up a few spectator stands or a couple of horse-jumps. That's wholesale destruction.

What's odd is that the Olympic guys haven't considered how much face they'd lose if the games went ahead and the place WAS too small - and the rest of the world laughed at us because of our rubbish facilities. (You might care to bear in mind too, that Greenwich and Blackheath are full of holes - secret caverns, tunnels and chalk mines - including many in Greenwich Park itself - let's not even begin to think of what would happen if some horse and rider ended up in one of them...)

You don't have the power, I am sure, to put the kibosh on this. But you do have the clout to be able to ask some serious questions and knock a few heads together. Quite apart from the wholesale traffic and other chaos it would cause (I'm personally less worried about that - that's temporary) this could be extremely damaging to Greenwich's tourist trade from 2013 onwards. These events really mustn't happen here.

Not In My Back Park? Yeah, possibly. But this isn't going to be my back park for ever - and I'm asking you now to give the Olympic Delivery Guys the chance to back down gracefully for all the generations whose back park this is going to be in the future. We can't just go to the local DIY centre and get a few 300 year-old trees to fill in the holes or get archaeologists to discover new and exciting things retrospectively. We HAVE to protect what we have now.

I understand you're rather fond of Greenwich. That's presumably the Greenwich we have now, not what little Greenwich we'll have left if three weeks in 2012 are allowed to take their toll. Please. Ask some questions. And don't take anyone's word for it.

I will be delighted to relay your reply to my readers....

Best wishes

The Greenwich Phantom

Add your own voices, guys, if you feel as strongly as me - and the people who have told me they've written to the Mayor today. Don't wait for 'someone else' to deal with it.

mayor@london.gov.uk

Some Interesting Sites

It seems that people have been doing their homework this afternoon and I'm delighted to pass on some of the sites related to today's earlier post that I've been sent:

http://www.bef.co.uk/Downloads/Greenwich%20Park.pdf

http://www.bef.co.uk/The_Olympic_&_Paralympic_Games/Frequently_Asked_Questions_about_Greenwich.html

http://www.bef.co.uk/Downloads/Greenwich_factSheet.pdf

Greenwich Council has "united with one voice", and it's that of Chris Roberts:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/london/content/articles/2008/02/12/greenwich_olympic_venues_feature.shtml

Good artists' impression here:
http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/news/397/66114.html

The stifling of debate is a bit of a concern:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2006/nov/14/sport.comment

Like many articles, this quotes Dane Rawlins, but notes he "lobbied for the equestrian events of the Games to be held at Hickstead in West Sussex"
http://www.eurodressage.com/news/dressage/europe/2006/uk_greenwich.html

Here are some pictures of the 2008 venues in Hong Kong (moved from mainland China after worries about horse diseases). The showjumping etc arena is for 18,000 people, compared to the 23,000 required (by the IOC) for Greenwich.
http://en.beijing2008.cn/cptvenues/venues/equ/n214076123.shtml

This shows the combined size of the two Hong Kong venues:

http://www.hkjc.org.cn/eng/about/activity_olympic_full.asp?in_file=/english/news/news_2007070716426.htm

Interview on site in Greenwich with the course designer:
http://www.military-boekelo.nl/images1/documenten/sue2.pdf

Underneath the Spreading Chestnut Tree - But For How Long?

I'd meant to wait to talk about the fabulous chestnut trees in Greenwich Park until the autumn, when they fruit - and are the traditional source of much merriment for centuries of people from sundry backgrounds (more about that later). But things have escalated, and I am writing about them now as I am beginning to seriously fear for their safety.

Greenwich Park as we know it was laid out in the early 1660s - a time when the Restoration was still fresh, as were the tastes of the new King Charles II (and Samuel Pepys, of course, who often walked through the park with lecherous thoughts of "Bagwell's Wife...")

Charles wanted to forget the destruction caused in Greenwich by the Commonwealth and create something new for us to be proud of. He fancied something a bit like Versailles and commissioned Andre Le Notre, who'd designed the French palace's gardens to come and work a bit of his magic in Greenwich.

Of course, it's unlikely that Le Notre ever made it here - if he had, it's just possible he wouldn't have designed the park quite like it is now - his drawings are glorious on paper, but frankly they look a bit - well, quirky, given the amount of ups and downs that Greenwich Park's geography actually has. But no matter. It's our quirky - and for centuries we've loved his lines of chestnuts, curious paths and his nearly-cascades (just below the Observatory, that strange, undulating hill is what remains of steps which had been intended as a grand cascade - Charles, of course, being Charles, ran out of cash before it got any further...)

Tree-planting began in earnest about 1664, once the main groundwork was done. John Evelyn, a local - and famous for two things - his diary and his almost obsessive love of trees, got very excited indeed:

"March 4th, 1664 - This Spring I planted the home field and west fields about Sayes Court, with elms, being the same year that the elms were planted by His Majesty in Greenwich Park"

Naturally, it wasn't His Majesty himself that did the spade-work - it was the Keeper, Sir William Boreman's gang of trusty gardeners. 600 Elms and, rather more interesting for us, rows of Spanish Chestnuts, brought over from Lesnes Abbey, plus all kinds of other botanical goodies. It cost £545 just to plant them up. There were also coppices and dwarf orchards (we're still clinging onto one of them - a little haven of hope in a worryingly bleak time for the park.) There's also a mulberry tree listed - the first in England, planted by King James - I have no idea whether it survives and if so, where. Any clues?

But the best bits were those chestnuts, with their curiously spiralled, gnarled trunks and their majestic canopies - loved for generations of hungry locals for their fruits. A few got banged up in Queen Elizabeth's Oak for pilfering the chestnuts, but for most it became a bit of a local autumn sport. Luckily the trees are tough enough to have withstood the annual chestnut beating by eager locals hoping for a bumper crop (see above pic). Curiously, they still do. Suburban Bushwacker sent me a pic last year of a sign in the park (in both English and Chinese, interestingly) forbidding any kind of tree-human contact in the harvesting of chestnuts:

AD Webster, writing in 1902 comments that:

"The collection of trees, shrubs and other plants is extremely valuable."

Funny. You know, I thought that was a given. I thought that this huge natural resource for Londoners and wildlife alike was somehow important to our heritage. To Britain. But ever since I wrote that piece last week about the forthcoming Olympics, I've been receiving worrying emails that make me think that perhaps none of this matters to certain people who would rather see Greenwich Park decimated for their own aggrandisement, and who are in a position to directly affect the fate of our most valuable natural asset, than actually protect our heritage.

AD Webster points out that the peculiar Greenwich soil - very gravelly - is particularly suitable for the Spanish chestnuts. But this soil is also very susceptible to compaction. Hooves, feet, crowds, stands, toilets, jumps. Think about it. This isn't a couple of Chinese grannies nicking a few nuts - this is wholesale destruction. Especially if the course is to be full, rather than gymkhana-sized. In that case, we're talking actual cutting-down rather than just giving trees a slow death.

Of course it's not just 300-year old chestnuts that are in the firing line. Who, like me, has sheltered inside one of those old holly trees, so ancient they're totally hollow, in a sudden downpour? What about that fabulous herbaceous border down by the Queen's House? Literally first against the wall, I'd wager. I wonder if the future King Charles III knows about this?

Sadly everything I have so far is opinion, and I cannot repeat it without putting myself in the firing line for a libel case, but I am beginning to believe that our concerns are just the tip of a much bigger iceberg. Folks, I am beginning to think that we need to worry about this and worry a lot.

Without actual evidence I can go no further so far. But I implore you. Start asking around. Ask awkward questions. And ask everyone. Time is running out. Major decisions are just about to be made, and mostly behind closed doors. We will be presented with a fait accompli which will possibly mean the closure of Greenwich Park for years and, in the long run worse, wholesale destruction of not only our park but large swathes of the heath.

You can't just go to B&Q and pick up a few 300-year old chestnuts after the event. This isn't Ground Force doing a quick makeover in three days with a spot of decking and some blue paint. Gardens and Parks take years to mature, and yet these selfish, selfish people are, I am beginning to get the horrible feeling, intent on decimating centuries of wildlife and culture combined in harmony within the space of a few months. We cannot let this happen.

I repeat. Ask questions and ask them now. If you get any hard evidence, broadcast it. Don't necessarily send it to me - send it to the people who will make the loudest noise (by all means, copy me in though!) Trust no one.

Scaremongering - or Real Threat?

Jonathan has sent me this link to the News Shopper's take on an issue that Pablito first brought to my attention from the Telegraph about Greenwich Park just being too damn small for the Equestrian events at the Olympics. Do read them if you can, but what the articles boil down to is

• Greenwich Park is too small. Full Stop.
  This isn't from locals like us, this is from the riders who'll have to use it.
• Nothing will be left afterwards - it will all be removed.(not necessarily a bad thing in my humble opinion - TGP)
• Sadly much of Greenwich Park's infrastructures - paths, flowerbeds; possibly ancient trees - will have to be removed to take the temporary stuff.
• The Park may have to close for a year.
• Friends of Greenwich Park haven't heard anything about this.
• We're promised a "consultation."

Now. Is this a spot of scaremongering on the part of those who don't want the events to take place at Greenwich ('those' being - well, practically everyone except the Olympic committee, it seems - many local people who can't see how it can all be fitted in without massive congestion, damage to the park and loss of important facilities and important historic sites AND the bloomin' riders themselves who don't want to have to turn on a sixpence just to get out of their horseboxes) - or is it a real possibility?

Could we actually lose the use of our beloved park for a whole year leading up to the event, and god-knows-how-long after the games with only the assurances of the Olympic Committee (who, let's face it don't give a damn what happens after those few weeks in 2012; they're certainly not planning on using any of the £24m allocated to create any kind of 'legacy') that they won't have trashed it permanently.

Most of me is staying perfectly calm here. It's a good rallying call for people who care about the history, wildlife, trees, layout and sheer joy that Greenwich Park can give, and giving us a kick up the proverbial backside with a shock is a good thing. But a small part of me is beginning to worry even more about these Equestrian events than I was before. Those trees have survived over three hundred years. They were planted by Charles II. They've survived horticultural fashion trends, the arrival of Science and TWO-BLOOMIN'-WORLD WARS. If they don't have to actually cut them down to get the horses past them, the thundering of hooves will compact the ground to the point where they die anyway.

THERE JUST ISN'T ROOM. For heaven's sake, Olympic Committee, if you won't listen to local people, listen to your own athletes. They want to use Badminton or Lee Valley - to create a spacious, purpose built course for huge crowds. They know what's best for them to win medals. Do you really want the whole of the International Equestrian World grumbling about our rubbish facilities, just so the TV cameras get a nice picture in the background? Shame on you.

There's one thought I've been having whilst writing this, which I wonder whether anyone has actually considered yet. I began to wonder why the games couldn't just shift a little over onto Blackheath - big open space, lots of room, yada-yada. Then I thought. Of course - they can't use Blackheath because it's riddled with holes - as we've discussed on numerous occasions - great chalk caverns just beneath the surface that could fall in at a moment's notice - at the instant of hoof upon ground. A thoroughbred eventer could end up 20ft under the earth's crust, creating at best An Embarrassing International Incident.

Bet you can guess where this one's going.

Greenwich Park, too, is full of holes. Many of them man-made, but holes all the same. Those medieval passages may be brick-lined (and of historic value, incidentally) but they are, nevertheless, medieval and possibly not at their strongest any more. Even the youngest are 300-odd years old. And there may be a wall separating the park from the heath but I can't imagine that the chalk caverns finish at that wall. If the committee insist on Greenwich Park as a venue for pretty's sake, could they end up with a horse and rider in a hole deeper than Princess Caroline's bath?

Just a thought. In the meanwhile, I'm taking deep breaths, sticking with the Friends of Greenwich Park's circumspection, and assuming that this is a story cooked up to fire-up people like me. I confess I have no faith in that weasel-word "consultation." All it means is that they ask us what we think, we tell them and they ignore us. If it comes down to it, and our Park is either going to be mutilated - or closed for a year or more, I shall be first at the barricades, cloak swirling, pistols blazing and swash buckling...