Greenwich Park Olympics planning saga: The sequel

Just when you thought it was safe to go back into the park…

Credit to The Greenwich Phantom for spotting this, and I thought it merited a higher profile. Olympics organisers LOCOG are trying to strike out some of the conditions imposed on them by Greenwich Council at March’s planning meeting which gave the green light to equestrian events in Greenwich Park.

LOCOG has applied to Greenwich Council to have five of the 38 planning conditions removed from the scheme. These include demands that detailed designs be produced before any ground work is carried out, to preserve any archeological remains.

Worryingly for anyone who wants to see LOCOG held to account for what their activities in the park, they also want to strike out the requirement for a “community mitigation and management plan”, which would include the requirement to have a “community relations officer” and to pay for a public awareness campaign to remind people Greenwich will be open as normal (well, sort of) during the Games.

LOCOG is also trying to amend six other conditions, including a demand that the site be restored by 13 September 2012.

Now, it’s unclear whether this is LOCOG trying to satisfy some of those conditions imposed by the planning meeting, or whether this is them trying to wriggle out of them. At first glance, it looks like a bit of both – but once again it’s a huge planning document. You can find the full application on Greenwich Council’s planning search – application 10/1437/SD.

Despite a suggestion from NOGOE tubthumper-in-chief Andrew Gilligan that the council had possibly acted illegally in promoting the equestrian events during the planning process (first raised here in March), there’s been no word from NOGOE on any challenge to the council’s decision.


  1. The documents supplied with the new application appear to be both very substantial and intended to discharge conditions 9,11,12,13 & 14 and partially discharge conditions 1,4,6,8,10 & 27 of the original planning approval 09/2598/F. In other words they are to demonstrate how the demands of those conditions are being met.
    As they are very large documents, I haven’t read them so I don’t know whether they answer requirements well or badly (it’s beyond my technical competence anyway), or whether they may evade the issues.
    This isn’t an application to have conditions struck off.

Comments are closed.