Environmental Impact on Greenwich Park of Olympic Equestrian Events

Dear Royal Parks Agency,

I had a previous request for information on this topic with Natural
England, which was helpfully handled by Mr Darren Green; his last
response was on 17th September.

The planning application for the use of Greenwich Park in the
Equestrian Olympics is now with Greenwich Council, and objections
have been called for (by 27th January!)

With their last response was a copy of a memo from Dominic Coath to
Eve Campbell of 24 July 2009 on the Draft Scoping Opinion for the
Greenwich Park Equestrian Event. In it, he recommended that “LOCOG
should use this as an opportunity to provide a lasting legacy for
the natural environment by increasing the quantity and quality of
acid grassland and exploring any other opportunities for
biodiversity gain”, and said that “ The opportunities to provide
enhancements through habitat management and creation have not been
fully drawn out"

In its planning submission, LOCOG said “An acid grassland
mitigation strategy will be agreed with The Royal Parks in
consultation with Natural England, the London Acid Grassland
Habitat Action Plan Working Group and English Heritage”.

This has clearly not been done, and I for one can have no
confidence that it will be done to the satisfaction of those bodies
until the process is completed.

Could Royal Parks confirm that they have been involved in
developing such a mitigation strategy, and when it might be
completed to their satisfaction?

Yours faithfully,

John Bettelley

Dear Anne Marks,

Thank you for your response.

'Royal Parks are in discussions with LOCOG on a range of
strategies...', and 'actively progressing establishing a
deliverable, sustainable solution with LOCOG' suggests to me that
a) there is some way to go before any firm guarantees can be given
that there will be no long term damage to the Park, and that b)
because of this, LOCOG's application to Greenwich Council for
planning permission to use the Park should not be approved, and
that should be the position of Royal Parks.

I know this is a separate question, but were you aware of the
position of ICOMOS, regarding the World Heritage Site context for
the work planned? If not, I could send you a copy.

Regards,

John Bettelley

Dear Anne Marks,

Thank you for this reply. 2 points:

1. There are many people who would furnish you with a large number
of solid reasons why Royal Parks should not be 'assured by' LOCOG's
public commitment to returning the Park to its pre-Games condition.

2. Royal Parks' awareness of the ICOMOS (advisers to UNESCO on
British World Heritage sites) position does not seem to have had
any influence on your input to the LOCOG planning and application
to the council. This indeed seems to be the case with most of the
statutory consultees in this process, and I find it particularly
disturbing.
I would have thought that Royal Parks would be in the frontline of
defences for the Government’s responsibility to their commitment to
protecting the Outstanding Universal Value of World Heritage sites
(in this case, as a major constituent of Maritime Greenwich WHS).

This website's format will not really cope with what I want to send
you as a follow-up, so I will Email it separately.

The key points are:
1. Pruning trees to the extent likely to be necessary to
accommodate the cross country course will mean that LOCOG can't
return a tree so pruned to its 'pre-games condition'.
2. Stripping and storing the acid grassland and interim habitats:
there is good research to show that significant deterioration will
result, and will not be restorable.
3.The preparation and use of the track for the cross country
course, which includes 'decompaction, irrigation system, reseeding
and fertilising' 'suggests that reinstatement...will be impossible,
and result in visible evidence remaining for years'. This position
is from The Garden History Society, which (fortunately) is another
statutory consultee. It is surprising and disappointing that Royal
Parks cannot come to a similar conclusion and say so.

Yours sincerely,

John Bettelley