Slot88 Gacor Situs Judi Bo Slot Online Indonesia by Bet88

PremiumBola Situs Resmi Slot88 – Slot Gacor Situs Judi Bo Slot – Slot Online Indonesia by Bet88 Terpercaya Terbaik Terbesar Terbaru Deposit Pulsa Tanpa Potongan

Nogoe Comment

Nogoe Comment 13 June 2011 – Is LOCOG taking insane risks with the safety of both horses and competitors?

In recent days, hundreds of fencing panels like these (see below, click on image for full-size version) have been erected in Greenwich Park around the Test Event area.

In this context, this sort of fencing is dangerous, not only to human beings (trip hazards) but also to the competitors.

If a rider fell off, and a loose horse galloped into one of these, the outcome would be likely to be tragic.


Nielsen, a research company and Olympic sponsor, conducted a survey which claimed that there an overwhelming majority in favour of plans to hold the Olympic equestrian events in Greenwich Park.

NOGOE’s request to see the questionnaire was refused by LOCOG but, even on the basis of the published summary, NOGOE believed that this research was flawed.

NOGOE submitted its complaint to a panel of senior market research practitioners, most of whom agreed that the research appeared to be biased.

Four out of six agreed that it seems from the evidence of the summary that the aim of the survey was to provide a result favourable to the requirements of LOCOG rather than to provide objective conclusions.

Five of the six considered that many of the statements presented to respondents were designed to lead them to particular answers.

The bottom line is that the conclusion of the survey should be treated with suspicion, to say the least. NOGOE’s response: “This is spin masquerading as science.”

1 February 2010 – LOCOG’s tree survey only a “desk study” – planning application fails to comply with British Standard BS5837:2005 “Trees in Relation to Construction: Recommendations”

It appears that, not only did LOCOG not supply Greenwich Council with a copy of their tree survey (as required, see Section 16 “Trees and Hedges” of the “Town and Country Planning Act 1990 Application for Planning Permission”),

and as Greenwich Council specifically requested (see ES Vol 3 Appendix 1C),

they appear not to have done one in accordance with BS5837:2005.Appendix 2A ‘Aboricultural survey,

constraints and protection measures’ states that between May 2008 and October 2009,

“Base data was supplied by The Royal Parks from a tree hazard survey including tree positions recorded using GPS equipment to a limited degree of accuracy,

tree species, tree age class and basic estimated tree dimensions including tree heights and stem diameters …

Due to the scale of the project and the nature of the structures proposed it was considered sufficient to present approximate tree crown spreads at the constraints phase of the project using geo-referenced aerial photographs …

Trees within ORNC and the NMM were surveyed for the first time for the current project and plotted onto digital Ordinance Survey base maps using geo-referenced aerial photographs and adjacent features only.

“A full tree survey has to include a tree schedule but in Appendix 2A, there is only one mention (on page 4) of a tree schedule, where LOCOG claim that “Tree data has been stored within Treework Environmental Practice’s database

and has been available for consultation during the design phase in the form of a tree schedule and associated Tree Constraints Plan”.

The tree schedule should have been supplied to Greenwich Council but LOCOG have not done so.

Back to top