LOCOG have issued the following press release:

'Work will begin this week at Greenwich Park to prepare it to be the Olympic Equestrian venue.  The work will be carried out by sub-contractors working on behalf of the London 2012 Olympic Organising Committee (LOCOG) in association with The Royal Parks. 
The works have been approved by the local planning authority, Greenwich Council, who granted planning permission in March 2010 for both the test event in 2011 and events in 2012, subject to a number of planning conditions. LOCOG is now discharging a number of these planning conditions which have been agreed with the four statutory consultees - The Royal Parks, English Heritage, Natural England, and Sport England.
The route of the Cross Country course will be marked out in August to clearly identify the course for ground preparation work. The work itself will improve the condition of the grass in the Park for the route of the Cross Country course which involves reducing the hardness of the ground, and ensuring the grass is sufficiently watered.  Temporary artificial grass tuft markers will be used which will remain in place until the course is visible when they will be carefully removed.  These markers are used in many sports grounds to mark out playing fields.
The works will include:
Irrigation – Water will be applied to the course from time to time to help the grass to grow and to develop stronger root systems.  Because of the dry summer, this will happen daily for the first few weeks;
De-compaction – Over many years of use the ground in the Park has become closely packed together. Works will reduce this compaction,  which in turn will improve the quality of the grass by allowing roots to develop and strengthen;
Mowing – Specialist mowers will encourage a thicker, stronger sward of grass;
Other works will include the filling of minor and localised hollows in the ground using topsoil and turf, the removal of stones from certain areas of the Cross Country course, fertilisation of the ground and some re-seeding of areas where grass cover is poor.

Enhancement works to increase areas of acid grassland elsewhere in the Park will also commence, as part of the LOCOG-funded restoration programme.  This will result in an increase in the quality of acid grassland, once re-instatement works are complete.
Much of the work is similar to that which is carried out by The Royal Parks and their contractors on a regular basis in Greenwich Park throughout the year such as mowing, slitting of the ground to aerate the soil, and selected watering.

Ground improvement work will begin in August 2010 and continue throughout 2011 and up to the Games in July 2012.  The regularity will vary depending on weather and ground conditions.  Some  works funded by LOCOG will continue beyond the Games to ensure the Park is returned to its previous condition as part of LOCOG’s commitment to re-instate the Park.'

LOCOG have also updated their website www.london2012.com/greenwichparkconsultation to reflect the new situation and the work underway (to be found under the heading 'Frequently asked questions'). They will continue to update it from time to time with further information.

Greenwich Council is setting up a ‘Local Societies Consultative Group’ comprising representation from the Friends and the Blackheath, Greenwich and Westcombe Societies.

This was agreed in a meeting with senior borough planning officers and representatives of the London Organising Committee for the Olympic and Paralympic Games (LOCOG) and it will ensure that all four societies will have a full say on the outstanding matters that LOCOG need to deal with in order to meet the numerous conditions set when planning permission was given for the equestrian events in the Park.

Other bodies, including the Royal Parks, English Heritage and Natural England, are also monitoring the planning proposals, which will be dealt with in sets in several stages. The first is to do with plans for preparing the cross country course*.  Our comment on that will be submitted at the end of June. Provided Council approval is given shortly after, groundwork is likely to start during July. From then on we can expect to see LOCOG’s contractors in the Park, working on grass treatment such as irrigation, decompaction, seeding and fertilising.

Other elements in the planning application (eg Test Event, Games set-up, dismantling and removal etc) will be dealt with over the coming year and as each new set of submissions comes up, our four societies and the other bodies will be given advance notice and full opportunity to scrutinise and discuss all details before the recommendations are finalised.

A parallel arrangement for a transport group, on which the societies will also be represented, will be set up by the Olympic Delivery Authority (ODA) to deal with the issues relating to the Olympic Route Network (the ORN) and other transport arrangements.

Progress updates will be posted on the Friends website as LOCOG work through the wider detail of this first submission and subsequent sets later in the year.

*Full documentation of LOCOG’s first set of proposals to discharge the planning conditions can be found on the Council’s website www.greenwich.gov.uk in the Environment and Planning section.  Under the Quicklinks heading on the right hand side of the page, click on Planning applications search, then use the reference 10/1437/SD.

Update:  The Council gave their approval to this first set of proposals on 29 July.

The London Organizing Committee for the Olympic and Paralympic Games (LOCOG) presented their Planning Application for the equestrian events in Greenwich Park to Greenwich Council at the end of November last year.  The Friends Committee, after working closely with the Greenwich, Westcombe and Blackheath Societies, submitted our response to the Planning Board within the very tight January deadline.  It was no easy task, given that the Application ran to some 3000 pages which had to be combed through in detail.
    In the months before their submission, LOCOG put a lot of effort into consulting all of us, and they deserve credit for what they have done to take account of the understandable concerns of local people about using the Park — a World Heritage Site — for the equestrian events. 
    They have also put a great deal of effort into surveying the sensitive archaeology and ecology of the Park and understanding its constraints.
    That said, their Planning Application fell short in several key areas. Our submission set out the issues where additional or complete information should be provided; conditions we believe should be applied if planning permission is given; and proposals which should be brought back to the Planning Board for reconsideration.
(The full text of our response to LOCOG’s submission is posted on this website.)

Our comments focused primarily on the following:

The Arena

This area in front (to the south) of the Queen’s House will showcase the dressage and jumping events, with an Arena to accommodate 23,000 people.  Riders in the cross country event will also go through it. The competition area (known as the Field of Play) obviously needs to be flat but the plans for levelling it are unclear.  No fewer than three construction methods have been presented, with no indication about which might be the preferred option. The designs for the spectator stands and ancillary buildings are also incomplete at this stage.
    We have therefore argued that all plans for the Arena should be brought back to the Planning Board when their details have been clarified.

The Test Event

The test event to be held in 2011 is a dress rehearsal for the logistics of the venue and, crucially, a proving of the plans for the cross country course, the arena field of play and seating for spectators.  Here again information is lacking.
    According to the LOCOG submission, it is likely to involve disturbance to the grassed area in front of the Queen’s House from June next year until 2012 and even beyond. We have requested a condition that this, and other areas of the Park used for the test event set-up, should be reinstated for public use immediately afterwards.

Restriction of Access

The proposals suggest that parts of the Park will be ‘off limits’ over the next three years. For us, the issue is how the restrictions will apply; but the Planning Application is short on detail. Regular users of the Park need to know exactly when and where access through the Park will be restricted.

Grasslands

The acid grasslands in the Park are ecologically important.  One aspect of LOCOG’s proposal for dealing with them (which has yet to be finalised) looks to be radical and, as far as we know, in part untested. Their broader proposals for treating other areas of grassland along the course also appear to involve restricting normal movement cross the Park for long periods of time as well as being visually obtrusive.
    We have argued that the whole grassland management plan outlined in the planning application needs to be reviewed and revised and brought back to the Planning Board.

Tree Protection

A comprehensive tree survey has been carried out by LOCOG but details have not been included in the Planning Application making it impossible to know in relation to the cross country course which trees should be offered the necessary root protection, though this will be an issue for the Royal Parks to manage.
    We have said that the survey must be made public and that the Royal Parks and Greenwich Council’s own tree experts must agree exactly how and which trees should be protected.

Archaeology and Ecology

Much work has been done to understand the archaeology and ecology of the Park, which is to the good.  But our view is that an archaeologist should be present to monitor the effects of course construction and ensure that it does not compromise the archaeological inheritance. Adequate measures, including an ongoing monitoring programme, must also be in place to protect the present and future habitats of bats and notable bird and invertebrate species native to the Park.

Spectator Numbers

On Cross Country day, it is proposed to allow some 50,000 spectators (in addition to the 23,000 in the Arena) into the Park. Unless it can be demonstrated how that many people can be accommodated satisfactorily, we believe the number should be reduced.

Reinstatement

We have asked the Planning Board to insist on a contractual guarantee of full reinstatement of the Park within specified time limits, backed with the funds necessary to achieve this.

Legacy

LOCOG’s submission is vague about what legacy will remain after the Games.  We have urged that the Planning Board should insist on much-needed improvements to the Blackheath Gate entrance in addition to the upgrading of the Children’s Playground.

Transport and Traffic

We have not commented separately on these matters which fall more naturally within the remit of the Blackheath, Greenwich and Westcombe Societies, whose comprehensive submissions we have supported.

STOP PRESS

Planning Board Decision

Members will probably know by now that the Council’s Planning Board approved LOCOG’s Planning Application on 23 March, subject to a large number of conditions, many of which reflect the objections raised by the Friends and the other Societies.
    At the meeting councillors were urged to support a proposal to establish a properly constituted Consultative Group to provide a public input into the further consideration of these issues, before planning consent is extended to them, and generally to monitor the implementation of planning approval and the later restoration of the Park.  This group would include representatives from the Friends and the other local amenity Societies.
    We are hopeful that the Council will agree to this.

LOCOG's planning applications for the use of Greenwich Park and Circus Field for the Olympic and Paralympic Games were submitted to Greenwich Council at the end of November.  The extensive documentation has been examined in detail and the Friends' formal response to the Council is set out below.

FRIENDS OF GREENWICH PARK - RESPONSE TO PLANNING APPLICATIONS 09/2598/F & 09/2599/L

USE OF GREENWICH PARK FOR THE 2012 OLYMPICS AND PARALYMPICS

The Friends of Greenwich Park (FOGP) have some 1700 members, the vast majority of whom are regular users of Greenwich Park. Our prime objective is to work for the good of the Park, by supporting and promoting its various amenities, so that it can continue to be enjoyed by all those who use it, whether they are locals or visitors from further afield.

At a Special General Meeting, held in July 2008, a large number of our members expressed the view that the cross country element of the Equestrian Events should not take place in Greenwich Park at all, for reasons that have been well publicised, and we have made the organisers and other authorities aware of this. Separate from the FOGP, another body (NOGOE) has been set up, dedicated solely to having the Events moved to another location. We understand that body will be making its own representations to the Planning Board.

At the same SGM, our members agreed that the FOGP committee should nevertheless engage with the organisers about the detail of the proposals, so that, if the authorities decided not to remove the Games from Greenwich Park, the views of the Park users could be taken into account in the planning process. The Park, with its stunning location and iconic buildings, is a national treasure that helped win the bid for the Games, and it should be treated as such in accommodating them.

Accordingly, the FOGP - together with the Blackheath, Greenwich and Westcombe Societies - have been in consultation and negotiation with LOCOG in numerous meetings and conversations during 2008 and 2009. Throughout those exchanges, we have made it clear that we have a number of serious concerns about the Equestrian Events:

• first, about the physical effects on the Park's landscape, ecology and biodiversity, caused principally by the construction of the Cross Country Course and the Arena and spectator footfall.
• second, about the loss of public access to the Park before, during and immediately after the Games.

We welcome the fact that LOCOG have been prepared to consult with us and the other local amenity groups, and we acknowledge that those consultations have resulted in some significant changes to a number of the original proposals. We are also pleased that LOCOG have devoted time and resources to survey the site thoroughly and to seek to understand the special problems and constraints that arise in utilising this very public space.

That said, there are major aspects of the proposals (some amply described, many lacking essential detail) that continue to give us serious concern and, as they stand, we regard some of them as unacceptable.

This paper sets out:

• issues where additional or complete information should be provided
• conditions that we believe should be firmly attached to any consents
• proposals that should be brought back to the Planning board for reconsideration, after a further consultation process.

The key points are set out in this letter, and, where necessary, explained in more detail in the attached Appendix.

1.   THE ARENA

• Construction plans for the Field of Play, involving three possible options, are far too tentative for decisions to be made at this stage.
• Option 3 (Compacted Fill built up to the required finished level), as currently described, should be rejected because it would involve totally stripping and storing the turf and topsoil, as well as requiring an unacceptable level of heavy vehicle movements.
• Options 1 and 2 need to be clarified. For example, it is not clear if either or both would require removal of topsoil, the need for which requires justification.
• Conditions must also be attached to the way in which any topsoil or turf that is removed is stored in suitably controlled conditions.
• The arena and training areas need to be re-turfed, not re-seeded, with an appropriate grass type, agreed with the Royal Parks and also sourced in advance. This will restore public access more rapidly.
• The design for Arena spectator stands and the ancillary building are as yet unfinished. The Arena's visual impact, - cladding finish and colour - in the Park setting, and in particular from the Wolfe statue, is an important missing piece.  The design should not be approved without more detail at this stage.  
• Construction details of the video board and scoreboard are described 'yet to be confirmed but will be defined at a later date'. Those features will be highly visible and need to be specifically approved.
• In short, the whole Arena proposal needs to be much more detailed, and should be brought back to the Planning Board for further consideration.

2.   PHASING OF THE WORKS AND RESTRICTION OF ACCESS

• Closing of parts of the Park over the next three years is a highly sensitive issue and there should be a condition that no restriction of access shall be implemented without the agreement of the Royal Parks.
• Firm conditions should be laid down as to the precise timing for setting up and dismantling temporary structures, and the re-opening of restricted areas.
• More detail is needed on when the perimeter fencing will be erected and the dates during which individual gates to the Park will be shut. It should be a condition that the FOGP, representing the many regular users (including families, pedestrians, cyclists, dog-walkers etc), be consulted before such decisions are taken and approved.
• A detailed schedule of closures should be required so that regular users of the Park may know exactly when and where access is restricted.

3.   TEST EVENT (TE) - see also the Appendix

• Plans for the Arena are unclear, but appear to involve works whose effect cannot be described as 'minor adverse' if reinstatement may not be done until 2013.
• It is not clear what, if any, public access there will be to the Field of Play area, between the time the TE ends and construction of the main Arena begins. It would be unacceptable for the whole of that area to be out of bounds for the entire period.  The field of play area needs to be reinstated for public use immediately after the TE.
• The form and extent of spectator seating during the TE needs to be specified, and conditions imposed regarding its dismantling immediately afterwards.  
• Similarly, all other temporary accommodation and structures erected for the TE should be dismantled and taken away immediately afterwards, and the ground reinstated for public use - subject to grassland management work - in a way that is agreed with the Royal Parks.
• Plans for the use of perimeter fencing are also unclear. They should be clarified, and agreed with the Royal Parks, before consent is granted.
• Use of the boating pond (a very popular feature for families and children) for the Cross Country Course should be conditional on it being returned to public use as soon as possible after the TE.
• Again, the whole Test Event proposal needs much more clarity, and revised plans should be provided for the Planning Board for reconsideration.

4.   TREE PROTECTION

• Tree protection is crucially important.  Information on precisely how trees are to be protected is unclear. We note that a comprehensive Tree survey has been carried out in accordance with BS5837, but accessible data has not been included with the planning application documents.  We note also the principles set out in the Tree Constraints Plan in Appendix 2A of the Environmental Statement.  What is needed is a link between the two factors so that everyone can know which trees are affected and should be afforded the necessary root or canopy protection.
• LOCOG should be required to:
  • publish the results of the Tree Survey and reach a comprehensive agreement with the Greenwich Borough Tree Officer and the Royal Parks on the protection methods to be applied to every high value tree.
  • give an assurance that the principles set out in BS5837 (Trees in Relation to Construction) shall be followed in relation to all arboricultural constraints and tree protection methods.

5.    ARCHAEOLOGY AND ECOLOGY - see also the Appendix

• Here again, the proposals lack detail, even in the area around the enclosed Roman remains which are classified as of 'very high importance'.
• The proposal that, throughout the construction period, an archaeologist should be present should be made a condition of consent.
• It is essential that the monitoring programme of bats and birds and other species should continue into 2010 and 2011. The results of these surveys must be fully taken into account in setting protection measures to be applied in order to minimise disturbance by excluding spectators from key foraging and nesting areas of notable bird species and adjusting lighting interference in known bat roost and foraging areas.  
• All necessary protective measures against impact from vehicles, machines and people should be agreed with the Royal Parks, in consultation with English Heritage and Natural England as appropriate.  This should be a condition of consent, together with an assurance that protection standards set, as agreed with the Royal Parks, are fully adhered to.

6.   GRASSLAND MANAGEMENT - also see the Appendix

• Major issues attend the proposals for dealing with grass for the Cross Country Course (CCC). Some are to do with work along its whole length; others have a particular impact on the sensitive and important acid grasslands, for which a management programme is being drawn up.
• The proposal envisages invasive seeding along the whole course with perennial rye grass and attendant works that could cause disruption and wider grass disturbance.
• If soil stripping were to be carried out as proposed over the whole of the acid grassland within the CCC, bare earth would be visible over large areas, and for several weeks, in 2010 and 2012 until new grass has become established. The whole process proposed for the acid grasslands appears questionable in terms of the immediate impact on flora, fauna and medium to longer term appearance, and needs further evaluation.
• The proposals to rope off the CCC suggest that the whole of the course will be out of bounds, once work on it begins, subject only to specific crossing points. This is an unacceptable restriction of access to large parts of the Park for a very long period. These restrictions should be curtailed before consent is given.
• This programme of work is scheduled to start in March 2010, most probably before the planning application has been fully processed, which is clearly unacceptable.
• In short, the whole of the CCC grass management plan for construction and restoration needs to be reviewed, revised and agreed in much more detail with the Royal Parks (and other appropriate bodies, such as Natural England) and brought back for the Planning Board to reconsider.

7.   SPECTATORS

• The proposal to have some 50,000 spectators, and Olympic Family members, on Cross Country day (in addition to the 23,000 in the Arena) would put an enormous strain on the Park infrastructure. Unless it can be demonstrated how that many could be accommodated, the number should be reduced.
• The proposals should include an explanation of how the pattern of spectator movement, including the location of the viewing areas, is confined as much as possible to hard-standing, and agreed with the Royal Parks.

8.   CHILDREN'S PLAYGROUND

• This is probably the most intensively used part of the Park, visited and enjoyed constantly throughout the year, and a key facility for families and young children.
• It is essential that the Playground remains fully open for as long as possible, and firm conditions should be laid down ensuring that the period during which the non hard-standing part will be closed off is kept to an absolute minimum.

9.   VEHICLE MOVEMENTS

• Large numbers of heavy vehicle movements pose a risk to both the Park infrastructure and to Park users. Strict conditions should be laid down, and agreed with the Royal Parks, as to routes that the vehicles may use and the maximum speeds they can be driven at, both on the public roads within the Park and on the other paths and track ways.
• Conditions should be laid down regarding the parking of contractors' vehicles, and those of their employees, so as to avoid, so far as possible, the loss of parking space for Park users and congestion of the roads and paths in the Park.

10.  REINSTATEMENT AND GUARANTEES

• A condition should be set that there be a contractual guarantee of total reinstatement of the Park, including full financial provision by a bond or other means for the cost of remedial works, both expected and unexpected, at no cost to the Royal Parks.  
• Deadlines should be laid down as to when key reinstatement projects must be finished, and conditions attached to them being completed to the satisfaction of the Royal Parks and other interested bodies, such as Natural England.

11.  LEGACY

• The documents make inadequate references to a permanent Games legacy in the Park. The legacy benefits need to be extended and more specific if they are to represent reasonable compensation for the widespread disruption created by the Games.
• The Blackheath Gate entrance, which is permanently vulnerable to heavy vehicle damage, and very likely more so in 2011 and 2012, is in need of appropriate redesign and reconstruction. The opening of Duke Humphrey Road from the A2 will no doubt improve access into the Park for heavy vehicles, but the projected increase in traffic over that period is likely to increase the risk of damage occurring.
• The Gate's replacement should be treated as a priority legacy project, in tandem with the comprehensive improvement plan for the whole of the Blackheath Gate area currently under discussion with LBG and where substantial reinstatement work will be required as a result of the use of Circus Field for the Games.
• We urge the Council to impose a Section 106 agreement, covering both the Blackheath Gate and the Children's Playground

12.  TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORT

• We are not commenting separately on these issues, but we support the points made by the Blackheath, Greenwich and Westcombe Societies.

13. FINALLY
Many plans have a knack of coming apart when faced with the challenges of finance, unexpected obstacles and the need to meet deadlines. It is for these reasons that, if planning permission is given, the FOGP look to Greenwich Council to ensure that any consents issued are subject to stringent conditions that demonstrate a determination to protect all that is important about Greenwich Park and require the organisers to put right any damage.

PLANNING APPLICATION REFERENCES  09/2598/F & 09/2599/L

APPENDIX TO FRIENDS OF GREENWICH PARK RESPONSE

THE TEST EVENT 2011 - see Section 3

The scale and impact of the Test Event is clearly of greater magnitude than previously understood. Information about many aspects of this is lacking and some of it confusing and contradictory.  

There is no clear plan for the construction of the Arena and Field of Play.  Most disturbing is the statement (Environmental Statement (ES) 12.6.4) that "the works could also require the lifting of the turf under the arena", while curiously the following paragraph refers to "only some temporary effects to the area proposed for the arena".  Paragraph 12.6.6 then reads that the "lawns to the south and south east (should it read southwest?) of the Queens House are likely to remain disturbed until the post Greenwich Park Events amenity grassland reinstatement works".

That effectively restricts normal use of this heavily used area from the summer of 2011 through to 2012/13 - described as a "minor adverse" effect in terms of the sensitivity of the Park (ES 12.6.7).  The Planning Statement (3.56), however, reads "the Arena may not be required, but capacity for around 2000 seats will be required."  

All this needs clarification to determine exactly how these works will be carried out and how access will be restricted. There should also be an assurance that any disturbance to the lawns will be remedied after the Test Event to allow full access until the spring of 2012.  Other areas of the Park affected by the cross country element should also be speedily reinstated within an agreed timetable.

In view of the lack of clarity on this and the other points covered in Section 3 of our main Summary, revised proposals for the Test Event should be submitted to the Planning Board for reconsideration.

ARCHAEOLOGY - see Section 5

A great deal of preparatory work has been undertaken to identify the detail, sensitivity and spread of the archaeology of the Park, but to what extent and how features of high archaeological importance will be given overlay or other protection from the impact of horses or people is not easily understood. A site plan indicating the course in relation to the archaeological features should be provided.

The possibility of encountering unidentified remains close to the surface during construction is acknowledged (ES 9.7.6).  It is imperative therefore that an archaeologist should be present during all grass preparation and construction to ensure that any features uncovered are given appropriate investigation and preservation treatment.

We are particularly concerned about the area around the enclosed Roman remains (AF2), which is classified as of very high importance.  The course passes close to the west of the railed mound, but of more concern are the indicated triple jumps (10 and 11ab) directly below the mound with a (spectator?) stand and camera position close to the railings to the east/south (Planning Drawing 600).

It appears from the Environmental Statement (Appendix 9G, Section 6) that invasive groundwork will be avoided for construction of the jumps and stand (though Planning Drawing 602 indicates the use of Spirofax fittings for the jumps), but this will entail considerable activity during setup and removal, with the attendant risk of archaeological disturbance. This, together with the spectator concentration around this area outside the small exclusion zone indicated (Planning Drawing 001), represents an unnecessary risk to potentially extensive buried remains, despite protection methods proposed in mitigation.

Ideally the course should be moved further away from the known remains area, but at the very least consideration should be given to repositioning the jumps and stand to lessen potential damage.

Proposals for this part of the course should be revisited for these reasons.

GRASSLAND MANAGEMENT  - see Section 6

This is a most unsatisfactory element in terms of its impact on the Park's ecology, amenity value and perceived landscape character - the latter described in the Non Technical Summary as "largely unaffected".  It is far more obtrusive and invasive than we have understood hitherto.

The programme (ES 3.4) for drill seeding with perennial rye grass along the whole course, weed control systems, decompaction, fertilising and installation of irrigation systems all have the potential to cause substantial disruption as well as disturbance to adjacent grassland while the strengthening work is undertaken.  It is by no means clear how long after the restoration process (the application of herbicides etc.) the effects of the strengthening treatment will be visible.

Additionally the ES states (3.3.4) that in order to protect the grassland management regime "public access to the cross country course may be restricted during grassland management works from spring 2010". Furthermore it reads (3.4.13) "Ideally access would be limited to areas of the course subject to treatment to allow the grass management regime to be fully effective.  This could be achieved by cordoning off the narrow strip of the course through the grassed areas leaving multiple openings to enable park users to cross the course."
Quite apart from the visually negative effect of the fencing criss-crossing over most of the Park, these proposals imply an unacceptable restriction on Park users' freedom of access for well over two years.   

A condition should be set for agreement to be reached with the Royal Parks to allow sensible movement round the Park and to keep open essential and popular leisure areas of grassland such as the cricket and bandstand fields during 2010 through to 2012.
 
The proposal for acid grassland treatment in particular (ES11.7.9) is of great concern, regardless of the longer term enhancement promised for the areas outside the actual course. This is a priority habitat of which 2.3ha will be adversely affected for some five years. If soil stripping works are to be carried out along the entire acid grassland and intermediate habitat sections within the course, as is clearly implied, areas of bare earth where grass and topsoil have been stripped and replaced will be visible for several weeks in 2010 and 2012. There is the added risk of disturbing buried remains as a result of this process.

We question the need to strip and re-grass flat areas, which we consider entirely inappropriate, though we recognise the aim of avoiding any long term reduction in the quality of the habitat.  We accept, however, that particular strengthening treatment may be necessary for safety reasons on steep slopes where the grass cover is inadequate, to ensure a proper grip. If soil stripping were to take place, a detailed plan for the safe storage and replacement of the soil would be essential, as would be the need to ensure that the new seed type and provenance is fully acceptable to the Royal Parks.

It is regrettable that this programme, with a scheduled start date of February/March 2010, has not yet been finalised.  It is also particularly worrying that there may not be a precedent for course creation on a terrain such as this. The proposals as described must be reconsidered urgently with the Royal Parks, in conjunction with the AGHAPWG * and Natural England to clarify precisely what is intended, to assess the validity of the methodology and to seek a less invasive process.

In view of the large question mark over the whole grassland management proposal, it should be brought back to the Planning Board for further consideration

*Acid Grasslands Habitat Action Plan Working Group

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)

At our August meeting with the Olympic and Paralympic Games organisers (LOCOG), they confirmed that their EIA is well underway with data being collected which will result in an Environmental Statement - a supporting document to the Planning application due to be submitted in December. This will contain all relevant environmental information for the Park site, including noise, air, visual, heritage, ecological, transport and socio-economic assessments.
As part of the consultation process we and the three other local societies have now received a copy of LOCOG's Scoping Report, a checklist of topics to be covered in the EIA. This has been sent to Greenwich Council and others for comment. The societies will be submitting a joint response before the end of the month.

2011 Test Event

We are pressing for a good deal more information about the 2011 Test Event, in particular the scale, timing and extent of consequent Park closures, however limited. LOCOG are still working on this, but they comment that they are looking to hold a smaller scale eventing competition to test all disciplines, which will be at a lower level than the Games. - The jumping and dressage field of play will be in the same location as for the Games but considerably scaled down, with show jumping taking place on a piece of prepared grass. - There will be a requirement for stabling and some training areas, with the event involving some 50-60 horses, not 200.

Legacy

We continue to press for positive legacy (that is, long-term benefits) for the Park. LOCOG and the Royal Parks are in discussion about our suggested proposals and we are hopeful that we shall hear something definitive about this shortly.

The meeting planned for Friends of Greenwich Park and members of the other three amenity societies concerned with the equestrian events in Greenwich Park is to be held at the Blackheath Halls on Wednesday 23 September at 7.30pm. Senior representatives from the London Organising Committee for the Olympic and Paralympic Games (LOCOG) and the Olympic Delivery Authority (ODA) will give presentations and answer questions about the details of the events in Greenwich Park as part of the pre-planning application consultations.

The 23 September meeting is for Friends and members of the Greenwich Society, the Blackheath Society and the Westcombe Society only. Admission will be by the coloured slip in this issue of the Newsletter. The Halls open at 6.30pm. Once all seating is taken, people will be turned away.

Meetings with LOCOG have proved productive in the weeks since the spring Newsletter. The mid June meeting with representatives of the four societies produced a timetable for the run-up to the submission for planning permission currently scheduled for December 2009. A decision from the London Borough of Greenwich is expected around April/May 2010.

The Friends have been assured that the many and detailed studies which will inform the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) needed for the submission are well under way. During July we shall have the opportunity to view the proposed scope of the EIA, which is expected to include reports on ecology, tree surveys, archaeology, noise, utility assessments and transport. This and further venue progress details will be presented at our next meeting with LOCOG in August ahead of the formal public pre-application consultation in the autumn. LOCOG expects to be able to answer questions on the progress of all this at the 23 September meeting.

As part of detailed feasibility studies, LOCOG is undertaking some ground sampling and testing within Greenwich Park and the National Maritime Museum grounds from late June to early August 2009. The work is being done in consultation with The Royal Parks, National Maritime Museum, London Borough of Greenwich, English Heritage and the Museum of London. The testing involves samples dug by hand or taken through small bore holes. When analysed, they will show the make up of the layers beneath the surface.

The information gathered from the sampling work will assist the venue design process and will enable LOCOG to ensure that events do not have any detrimental impact on the Park. Any area investigated will be reinstated immediately following completion of the works. Posters will go on display throughout the Park explaining the work that is being done.

Cross country course
The Friends, along with the other societies, have continued to press LOCOG about their detailed plans for the cross country course and the Olympics sub-committee took a critical look at the proposals again in May with LOCOG’s Equestrian Competition Manager, Tim Hadaway, who explained how sensitive features and areas would be protected or avoided altogether.

We expressed particular concerns about the route through the Flower Gardens and the Children’s Playground. The latest revision of the route now takes in only the northern part of the Flower Gardens.

The Friends sub-committee also argued for a reduction in the amount of time parts of the Park will have to be closed. Here again we are pleased to report that LOCOG hopes that the period during which the whole Park is closed will be brought down further from the present estimate of between six to eight weeks to four to five weeks, with sections hopefully re-opening a week after cross country day.

Furthermore, it is hoped that parts of the Flower Garden and the hard-standing part of the Children’s Playground (but not the grass area, which will form part of the course) may be kept open throughout the Games, except on the day of the cross-country competition itself. Final decisions may depend on security considerations, but LOCOG’s willingness to listen and revise their plans is to be welcomed.

In response to our questions about the capacity of the Park to accommodate the cross-country, LOCOG has told us that the International Equestrian Federation (FEI) has said that the proposed course meets their requirements for an Olympic event. An updated version of LOCOG’s brochure about the Park venue can be found in the publications sections of their website www.london2012.com.

The Friends have been assured that the many and detailed studies which will inform the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) needed for the submission are well under way. During July we shall have the opportunity to view the proposed scope of the EIA, which is expected to include reports on ecology, tree surveys, archaeology, noise, utility assessments and transport. This and further venue progress details will be presented at our next meeting with LOCOG in August ahead of the formal public pre-application consultation in the autumn. LOCOG expects to be able to answer questions on the progress of all this at the 23 September meeting.

As part of detailed feasibility studies, LOCOG is undertaking some ground sampling and testing within Greenwich Park and the National Maritime Museum grounds from late June to early August 2009. The work is being done in consultation with The Royal Parks, National Maritime Museum, London Borough of Greenwich, English Heritage and the Museum of London. The testing involves samples dug by hand or taken through small bore holes. When analysed, they will show the make up of the layers beneath the surface.

The information gathered from the sampling work will assist the venue design process and will enable LOCOG to ensure that events do not have any detrimental impact on the Park. Any area investigated will be reinstated immediately following completion of the works. Posters will go on display throughout the Park explaining the work that is being done.

Members of the four local amenity groups concerned about the Olympics equestrian events in Greenwich Park - Friends of Greenwich Park, Greenwich Society, Westcombe Society and Blackheath Society - are all are to be invited to a special meeting which the societies plan to stage, most probably in September, ahead of the formal submission for planning consent for the events in December. Further news about when and where that meeting will take place will be publicised on the Friends’ website.