CPCA Newsletter Spring 2008

AGM7.30 pm Thursday

15th MayGoodliffe Hall, Christ Church,

Highland Road, off Gipsy Hill,London SE19

Full details on page 25

Crystal Palace Community Association

CPCANEWSLETTER

Spring 2008 Registered Charity No. 261790 Free to members - £2 where sold

Despite virtual blanket opposition, London Mayor KenLivingstone has approved sale of Metropolitan OpenLand on historic Grade II* registered Crystal Palace Parkas a source of funding for Park improvements.

Integral to the London Development Agency applicationto Bromley Council for a £67.5 million Latz + PartnerMasterplan is construction of luxury residential housingat locations within Crystal Palace Park.

If you are concerned at the sale of this parkland and theprecedent it would set for parks and public open spacesthroughout the country, protest to Bromley Council.

Following CPCA representations, Bromley have extended theperiod during which objections may be made until 31 May 2008.

FOR SALE Crystal Palace

Parkland

Bromley residents, living close toCrystal Palace Park, should havebeen notified by the council earlierthis year, of the planning applicationfor Park restoration, submitted bythe London Development Agency.However, as the Park, which lies atthe northernmost tip of Bromley, isbordered also by Croydon, Lambeth,Southwark and Lewisham, residentsof these boroughs may still beunaware of the application, as it isleft to each council to inform itstaxpayers.

Major changes planned for thePark, refer not just to design but toits use, management, sources offunding and the need for the Parkto generate its own income.Of most concern is that capitalfunding, central to the LDA’s‘Masterplan’, requires the sale ofparkland for private housingdevelopment.

Access to the applicationThere are two methods of

viewing the three applications andsupporting documentation whichmake up the Masterplan: eithervisit the planning department atBromley Civic Centre and ask tosee the documents, or open thedocuments online at the LDA’swebsite www.crystalpalacepark.nethome page and click on ‘planningapplications’ - this takes you to allthree Planning Applications and thevery important SupportingDocumentation and links to theapplication references. The CPCA’swebsite also has links to thisapplication.

Previously, the only way to viewthe documents was to downloadand save them to your computer,with individual file names. Thismade it impossible to view themdirectly online using a publicinternet facility.

Since we brought this failing tothe attention of Bromley, the sitehas been improved, although thereare still a number of files that donot open, while others havedisappeared altogether.

LDA SUBMIT PLANNING APPLICATION FOR

CRYSTAL PALACE PARKBromley’s website is much

harder to navigate and it is difficultto view the documents in relationto the various technical appendices.Bromley has not included thecritical ‘Supporting Documentation’,which includes the ‘BusinessCase’, ‘Cost Plan’ and the‘Management and MaintenancePlan’.

Although the largest planningapplication that Bromley has everconsidered, it is not flagged on itswebsite and, without knowing theapplication number, it is extremelydifficult to find.

Limited period for objectionsThe period in which objections

to the application can be made hasbeen changed a number of times.Objections and other represen-tations to Bromley, received withinthe allowed period, will be consideredand included in the Officers’ reportto the Planning Committee.

It is probable that Bromley willdetermine this application beforethe expiry, in March 2009, of theLDA’s lease option for the Park andit is likely to go before the PlanningCommittee in October 2008.

Bromley fails to properlynotify the public concerningCrystal Palace Park

Bromley Council is aware of itsstatutory duty of public notificationof major planning applications. Inthe case of this 11,000 pageapplication, the level of notificationhas been more akin to that for adomestic extension.

No to sale of parkland The CPCA, whilst on record as

supporting LDA restoration ofCrystal Palace Park, remainsopposed to the sale of parkland todevelopers as a funding source.Should the application beapproved, a precedent would beset that could herald the erosion ofour parks and green open spaces tocommercial development, in thesame way as many playing fieldshave been lost.

The LDA is disregarding resultsof their own consultation byincluding these controversial,residential development proposalsin the Masterplan.

Now is the time to object to thesale of parkland to developers forluxury housing.

Although an ‘outline’application, it sets out the elementsof the Masterplan and theillustrations give the size, massing,elevations, locations, generaldesign and impact of the privateblocks of flats on the Park. Shouldthe ‘outline’ application beapproved, a ‘full’ application willthen be submitted by the LDA,showing the final design anddetails of the proposals.

Bromley’s limited options Bromley Council Planning

Committee has three options whendetermining this application: toapprove, refuse or defer. They areunable to approve some elementswhile rejecting others. To allow thebuilding of housing on Grade II*registered, Metropolitan OpenLand, the LDA must demonstrate

Page 2

The arrival of 11,000 pages of planningapplication, the largest Bromley has everhad to consider.

Quote the reference numbers onall letters and emails. We would begrateful to receive a copy of yourletter for our records. Remember –anyone, anywhere, can object tothis planning application.

Send your letter to;Bob McQuillanActing Chief Planner London Borough of Bromley Civic CentreStockwell Close Bromley BR1 3UHor email: [email protected]

The crucial ‘Supportingdocumentation’

The LDA claim that the‘supporting documentation’ is notpart of the application, but theCPCA contends that this materialis essential. Our view is reinforcedby the LDA statement on page 7 ofthe ‘Business Case’: “the mainpurpose of the first stage of work is todraw up an outline business case toinform the planning application …”and on page 7 of the ‘Cost Plan’ inthe Executive Summary (1.3) itstates: “this Cost Plan has beenprepared to support the MasterplanPlanning Application.”

The following are grounds forobjection classified under topics.

‘very special and exceptionalcircumstances’. This means theLDA must prove that the only waybasic improvements to CrystalPalace Park can be funded, is bythe sale of parkland for housing.This argument would represent adefinite departure from Bromley’sUDP Metropolitan Open Landrequirements and the Mayor’s ownLondon Plan.

If Bromley is not persuaded bythe LDA’s argument then deferralbecomes a possibility, wherebyBromley could ask the LDA toreconsider and re-submit theirapplication without the inclusion ofhousing.

Evidence of overwhelmingpublic objection to the housingelement of the planning applicationshould be a material considerationwhen Bromley decide theapplication.

Automatic call-inShould Bromley choose to

approve the Masterplan, it mustthen be referred to the Secretary ofState for consideration, as thiswould be a departure from Bromley’sadopted Borough Plan. In decidingwhether to call-in the application,the Secretary of State will considerthe views of the public.

To object to the application If you agree with the CPCA that

selling public parkland for privatehousing is wrong, it is imperativethat you make your views knownto Bromley Council as soon aspossible. A specimen letter isenclosed for guidance. This lettercan also be found on our websitewww.cpca.org.uk together withthe CPCA’s own letter of objection.

The reference numbers for theLDA Masterplan Outline PlanningApplication and Conservation Areaconsent for demolition at CrystalPalace Park, London SE20 8DT are:

DC/07/03897/OUT &DC/07/03906/CAC.

The reference number for ListedBuilding Consent which refers tothe National Sports Centre is:

07/03907/LBC.

Page 3

Planning PolicyThe inclusion of sale of protected

parkland in the LDA Masterplanapplication for Crystal Palace Park:• is contrary to governmentplanning policy guidance PPG2 andPPG15, and Bromley’s UDP;• is contrary to the policies of theMayor’s London Plan in respect ofprotection of open spaces, andMetropolitan Open Land (MOL),• requires the demonstration of‘exceptional circumstances’ asembodied within PPG15 and theLondon Plan has not beenestablished. (Unless the LDA canprove otherwise, housing andbuildings that are not ancillary toMOL are not acceptable.) • is contrary to the LondonMayor’s objectives (as detailed inhis London Plan) which state:“Protect and improve the green belt,Metropolitan Open Land, otherdesignated open spaces …The Mayorwill, and boroughs should, maintainthe protection of MOL from inappro-priate development.”

• The loss of the internationalcaravan and camping centre* forhousing is contrary to the Mayor’sLondon Plan, Policy 3D.9 MOL,which states: “ …land that includesopen air facilities, especially for leisure,recreation, sport, arts and culturalactivities and tourism which serve thewhole or significant parts of London.”

Under LDA proposals this existing view across the playing field towards Crystal PalacePark Road will become one of multi-storey blocks of flats.

CPCA MembersPlease let us have your viewson these issues: Should parkland be sold forhousing to fund ambitiousrestoration of the Park? Should two huge greenhousesand two sunken gardens bebuilt on the open area of theItalian Terrace? Should security be a consid-eration in the location of thesegreenhouses?Should there be a five-storeyaccommodation and classroomblock on the green at theentrance to Ledrington Road? Should a ‘tree-top walkway’ bebuilt on stilts through theEnglish Landscape Garden? Should the Capel Manorcomplex, no longer referred toas the “promised children’s zoo”,have longer public openinghours?

Page 4

Special designations • Housing will conflict with thecharacter of the Conservation Areaas set out in Bromley’s SPG for theCrystal Palace Park ConservationArea. • Housing is harmful to the settingof ‘Listed Buildings’, i.e. structures– the terraces, the sports centre, thedinosaurs and the historic park. • The historic landscape of aRegistered Grade II* Historic Parkwill be harmed, i.e. views within,into and out of the Park. • Important mature trees will belost to built development. • Housing will threaten the Park’snatural wildlife habitats.

Planning history• The LDA are proposing changesin planning land-use terms e.g.from day nursery (Class use D1) tohousing (Class use C3), butproposals for change of use cannotbe made in an ‘outline’ application.

Site considerations• It is accepted that the One O'clockClub, St John’s Ambulance centreand the lottery-funded ParkMaintenance depot, althoughwithin the Park boundary are noton MOL. However, their proposedrelocation within the Park wouldresult in an overall loss of MOL andGrade II* registered parkland.

Surrounding area • Sale of parkland for housing is apermanent loss of pubic parkland.• Housing will have damagingeffects on the surrounding area and

neighbouring properties from anincrease in traffic, and major roadinfrastructure changes toaccommodate access, e.g. changesto the road system at SydenhamHill, Westwood Hill, Crystal PalacePark Road and Ledrington Road. • Page 70 of the EIA Non-TechnicalSummary admits that the height,size and scale of the proposedresidential developments “…arelikely to cause a small number ofadverse impacts…[to adjacent andexisting properties]”

• Blocks of flats on the periphery ofthe Park are contrary to thephilosophy of the Masterplan,which advocates permeability(visual and physical) at theboundaries of the Park. Housing isvisually damaging to the landscapeand the setting.• The road system is inadequate forthe Masterplan; traffic chaos ensueswhen there is a single large event inthe Park.• Housing provides no localemployment except during theconstruction stages.• Housing, and particularly luxuryhousing, has not been identified asnecessary in the locality.• The mix of housing typeproposed does not conform to themix type in the locality.• The proposed design of themulti-storey blocks of flats isincompatible with the adjacentperiod buildings and conflicts withthe small scale pattern ofdevelopment in the conservationarea.

Notes: * The international caravan andcamping centre at Crystal Palace isLondon’s only tourist camping andcaravan site and brings significanteconomic benefits to the local andwider London area. Unlikehousing, the area of parkland itoccupies would easily revert toparkland should the Club decideto cease operation.

Despite LDA claims to thecontrary, it is the public who usethe site and its facilities.

PPG means Planning PolicyGuidance and is governmentstatutory legislation with whichboroughs must conform unless'exceptional circumstances' can beproved.

SPG means SupplementaryPlanning Guidance – These areplanning guidelines drawn up bylocal authorities to emphasiseaspects of PPGs.

If you need further informationplease contact the CPCA.

Six enjoying the April Snow in Crystal Palace Park

Page 5

On 1 February flimsily attachedsite notices, blowing in the wind,were posted at the periphery ofthe Park. The six locations agreedbetween Bromley and the LDA didnot, however, include the mainentrances to the Park at CrystalPalace Parade, Old Cople Lane,Fisherman’s Gate, Penge Gate,Crystal Palace Station, Cintra Gate,Crystal Palace Museum or theOrnamental Gardens. Neitherwere there notices at bus stopsaround the Park, bus terminus, orlocations within the Park itself.

Confusion over datesIf you did spot one, or perhaps

all three, as should have beenpossible, you might have hadtrouble deciphering the illegibleand altered date by which you hadto respond.

At about the same time, smallpublic notices appeared in twolocal newspapers. However, onlythe South London Press can bepurchased locally, while the freeBromley paper is not available inUpper Norwood. The freenewspapers, distributed in CrystalPalace, were not given these publicnotices to publish.

Bromley’s statutory time periodfor receiving objection to this

Blowing in the wind - tens of millions of pounds worth of planning application

application has been inconsistentand confusing. Although Bromleyofficers have extended thestatutory 21 days to 42 days, thepublic notices in the South LondonPress of 1 February gave 21 days,while the flimsily attached noticesaround the Park stated 11 Marchfor the Outline application and anillegible date for the ConservationArea Consent and Listed BuildingConsent applications.

Bromley officers told the CPCAthat the response period had beenextended to 42 days to allow thepublic time to make representations,

On 21 January 2008, twelveweeks after the LDA’s CrystalPalace Park Masterplanapplication was registered,Bromley Council informed thefour neighbouring boroughs ofthis substantial and complexplanning application.

What should be of concern toresidents of Lambeth,Southwark, Croydon andLewisham, especially thoseliving near the Park, is that to-date, their own councils havemade no effort to inform themof this very significantapplication.

£67.5 MILLION, 10-50 YEARS TIMESCALE - JUST DAYS TO RESPOND

because of the enormous size ofthe document. It now transpiresthat the 42 day period onlyapplies to one part of theapplication, with the caveat that:

“All letters received up until thedate of the decisions will be taken intoaccount, though those received shortlybefore Committee won’t be able to besummarised in the report. If residentsand associations can comment byearly April this will enable officers tobe aware of concerns and views oflocal people, and this will help us indrafting the report”.

Wider public kept ignorant of largest cross-borough planning application - ever

If LDA forecasts of athreefold-plus increase in visitornumbers to the Park and itsattractions prove correct, localroads and neighbourhoods willfeel the impact with significantlyincreased traffic movements andparking requirement.

The absence of any co-ordinated cross-borough strategydemonstrates, yet again, theinability of the five local councilsto work together whenconsidering the future of thisPark and the well-being of localresidents.

The latest news fromBromley is that the periodduring which objection to

the application can bemade has been extended to

31 May 2008.

Park HousingThe exhibition showed

proposals at Rockhills of 132one and two-bedroom flats,with underground car parkingspaces for just half, and “some”three-bed units “that may suitfamilies”.

On parkland borderingCrystal Palace Park Road nearSydenham Gate there would beconstruction of six four-storeyblocks of flats (mis-described as‘villas’) of 45 apartments withunquantified underground carparking.

Ledrington Road hostelThe proposed construction of

a substantial five-storey block isof serious concern to theresidents of Anerley Hill livingin its proximity. This building

Page 6

ExhibitionPrior to the LDA’s

submission of their planningapplication for Crystal PalacePark to Bromley Council lastNovember, the LDA andmaster planners Latz + Partnerheld a public exhibition atCrystal Palace railway station.

This elaborate exhibitionwas the first and last time thepublic could view the Masterplanin its entirety before it wassubmitted to Bromley as aplanning application. Despitefive years of so-called stake-holder consultation, there waslittle evidence that the public’sviews had been eitherconsidered or incorporated, aprime example being that,despite massive public

CRYSTAL PALACE PARK - THE FINAL SOLUTION

Think of a number . . .The visitor numbers reported as

attending this exhibition werequoted variously as “2,000” (LDAspokesman), “up to 3,000” (LDAconsultants Nigel Westaway/theEnvironment Council) and “morethan 4,000” (LDA website).

they would have some input intothe design of the Masterplan.Few would have been aware that,at this late stage, any modificationof the Masterplan was impossibleand that their comments cardswould simply be forwarded toBromley with the other 11,000pages.

opposition, sale of parkland forhousing, as stated in theirexhibition brochures, has nowbecome “vital” to LDA plans.

Visitors may have been underthe misconception, especiallygiven the encouragement of LDAconsultants, that by completingthe little green comment cards,

will provide accommodation forvisiting athletes and schoolparties, and accommodation andclassrooms for an unspecifiednumber of Capel Manor students.

Should the Tramlink extensionproceed, it is likely to be routedthrough this area of the Park.

Please look ... but it’s too late to alter anything

Last March the LDA exercisedits option on the National SportsCentre and the surrounding 38acres. They are now responsiblefor this area for the next 125 years.However, they have yet to sign thelease for the rest of the Park.

At the LDA’s Housing andFunding meeting of 29 January2008, Mark Lloyd, who replacedRoger Frith as SeniorDevelopment Manager for CrystalPalace Park, stated: “We have untilMarch 2009 before we have to decidewhether to take the lease or not. Ithink we have made it perfectly clearfor a considerable time that we willawait the determination of theplanning application before the Boardmakes up its mind.”

Bromley’s dilemma Bromley have made no secret of

their wish to dispose of CrystalPalace Park principally as aconsequence of its location at themost northern edge of theborough, and its high annualrunning costs (£1,143,000according to the Masterplan).

It is probable that disposal ofthe Park to the LDA may influenceBromley’s determinations on someof the more controversial aspectsof the application.

Similarly, the LDA’s decisionwhether to exercise their optionon the Park lease, which expiresMarch 2009, may depend onBromley’s approval of theMasterplan application.

LDA yet to conclude lease on Crystal Palace Park

Page 7

The business plan is an essentialpart of any commercial planningapplication. Bromley Councilshould not be considering theMasterplan application in theabsence of a full business plan,which appears to be exactly whatthe London Development Agencyare expecting them to do.

No funding agency or financialinstitution, especially in the currenteconomic climate, would consider aproject of this size, unless supportedby a business plan and detailedindependent studies confirming theoperation of the project as econom-ically sustainable in the long-term,and within budget assumptions.The LDA have only provided abasic ‘cost plan’ for the Park, whichlacks detail. Yet at para 9.7, theOutline Business Case states: “It isimperative to develop this detailedbusiness plan given the need to

such a complex and large project,met with the following response:“Our more detailed cost plan,broken down into individualelements and quantities, may wellform part of the process ofevaluating tenders and as such I donot think that it will be possible todistribute such information, whichis potentially commercially sensitive.”

WHAT BUSINESS PLAN?demonstrate to funding organi-sations the potential benefits,outputs and outcomes that wouldresult from the Park proposals.”

A business plan is cardinal toanyone considering makingobjection to this planningapplication, or not, and on whichgrounds, and therefore it must beavailable to the planning authorityand to the public.

For the LDA to suggest otherwiseclearly indicates a worrying degreeof naïvety. The LDA are askingBromley Council and the public toaccept a proposal without thebenefit of vital information, whichmay result in fundamental changesto the design. Claim of sustainabilityis being assumed without evidence.

A request from the CPCA to theLDA for a fully worked-up businessplan for the Masterplan application,necessary for proper appraisal of

SELLING-OFF THE PARK, WHERE WILL THE

MONEY GO?At the October 2007 exhibition,

Munish Chopra of ‘dialogue’, theLDA’s PR consultants, assured thatmoney raised from sale of parklandfor housing development atRockhills would be ring-fenced forthe Rockhills area only, i.e. thepossible £6-7 million raised byselling parkland to developers willonly be used to fund the relocation ofthe Caravan Club, the resultantnecessary re-landscaping, a new café,and a widened Old Cople Road.

This contradicts assurances by theLDA that monies received from thesale of parkland would be used tofund basic park improvements.

This statement was later furtherconfirmed by Mark Lloyd, who saidat the December 2007 ‘Housing &Funding’ meeting: “The money fromRockhills would be ring-fenced for thatarea only - because of timing.”

Mr Chopra was unable to say howthe £4 million from sale of parklandat Sydenham Gate would be spent.

HILLTOP CAR PARKThe LDA’s scheme to use the site of the 1854 Crystal Palace as an

overspill car park on event days, for in excess of 600 cars, was first revealedlast October to a small number of members of the Norwood Society.

Society members, incensed at this use of the wonderful hilltop andseeking more detail, were told by the Chair, Peter Austin, that he wouldallow no members’ questions or requests for clarification to the LDArepresentatives present: Roger Frith, Robin Buckle and Laura Samuels.

The LDA’s publication of ‘It’s Your Park’, March 2007, had devoted itscentre-fold to the ‘The Palace Site’, with detailed new plans for amonoculture “tree palace” of asthma-inducing plane trees, but made noreference to its use as a car park.

Some limited reference can be found in the Environmental Statement ofthe Masterplan planning application para. 16.143 (if you know where tolook) where it states: “Further overflow parking would be provided along theUpper Terrace amongst the trees …”.

DOES THE RIGHT HAND KNOW WHAT THE LEFT HAND IS DOING?

The recent edition of the LDA’s mouthpiece, “Park News” (delivered toDulwich but not yet to roads near the Park in Upper Norwood) carried, onits cover, a letter from Manny Lewis, LDA Chief Executive. Therein, hepoured scorn on allegations that the hilltop of Crystal Palace Park wouldbecome a car park, seemingly unaware that the planning application,submitted by his own publicly-funded organisation, states just that!

The full-colour, glossy brochure, the ninth in the series, courtesy of thepublic purse, makes absolutely no mention under “key issues” of the extremepublic concern at proposals to sell public parkland for private housing.

Page 8

Those who have attended thesesporadic Saturday Stakeholder‘consultations’ at the SalvationArmy Hall, Westow Street, SE19,may be forgiven for assumingthat, with the planningapplication now submitted, thischapter of the Crystal Palace Parksaga is closed. But, only now,after four years of debate,argument, presentation andproclamation by a coterie ofcostly, and conceivably deaf,consultants, 18 months of LatzMasterplanning and the resultantmassive planning application, arethe vital issues being considered.

These are fundamental, such aswho will actually pay for thisambitious Park restoration andwho will manage the Park in thefuture when Bromley have leasedit to a public body (the LDA) whoemphasise they are not in thebusiness of subsidising andrunning parks. And, perhapsmost importantly, where is thefully-costed business plan, crucialwhen considering such a complexproject?

Hence the 23 February 2008meeting was advertised todiscuss:

Park ownership &governance

Housing & fundingAlthough less a discussion and

more a eulogy on behalf of theMasterplan by ‘representatives’ ofthe so-called Main Group–tasked‘Park Working Group’, manywondered why thesefundamental aspects regardingthe future of the Park had notbeen considered earlier – beforethe masterplanners werecommissioned perhaps.

No firm recommendation wasreached, although a new ‘regionalparks authority’ or a new ‘trust’option were favoured. The LDAare keen to transfer responsibility,management and financing assoon as possible.

Listening to the people?Since the possibility of housing

was first revealed by the LDAthree years ago, those attending‘consultation’ meetings haveconsistently and overwhelminglybeen against the housingproposals. Despite this, MarkLloyd insisted that the LDA “…dolisten to people.”

Mark Lloyd continued: “Thereare certain areas within theMasterplan at the moment which I'mcurrently looking at to see if they arestill justified… the world has changedeven within the last 18-24 months …the LDA or any successive owner doesnot want to be left with somethingwhich is visually intrusive or neednot be built or maintained because theraison d'être for its existence is nolonger extant.”

This significant departure fromhis previous assertion, that theMasterplan has to be considered inits entirety and therefore elementswithin it cannot be changed, raisesthe prospect of an unknownnumber of proposals in theMasterplan no longer beingappropriate in the future.

One thing is certain - trees andgreen open spaces will remainfundamental to parks. A moremodest restoration strategy forCrystal Palace Park, recognisingthis, would be timeless and appealto every generation.

Disquiet over Bromley’s‘consultation’

Peter Martin, Bromley’s Head ofHeritage and Urban Design,acknowledged Bromley’sshortcomings in publicising theMasterplan application. Heoffered to seek an officialextension to the period for publicobjection, from the unspecificdates of end “February/beginningMarch, to possibly the end of April, orend of May.” This was verypositively received by a majorityat the meeting. However, it waspointed out that many localpeople were unaware of the

application, due to Bromley’sfailure to properly publicise it,and a short extension would be oflittle help to them.

Masterplan modification?Mr Martin was also asked

whether Bromley had theauthority to exclude any aspect ofthe planning application which itconsidered unsuitable for therestoration of the Park. Heconfirmed that the applicationcould only be approved in total,refused or possibly deferred.Aware of the hostility to theinclusion of sale of parkland forhousing, Mr Martin raised thepossibility of a meeting betweenthe LDA and Bromley officers,prior to the application going toCommittee, when aspects of theMasterplan application could bereconsidered and perhapsamended.

Capel Manor Steve Dowbiggin, Capel

Manor’s Chief Executive,announced that the controversialbuilding proposed for LedringtonRoad would be used by CapelManor students as classroomswith staff on-call living on-site.

He anticipated that studentnumbers would reach 260 by2014/15 and expected somestudents to be accommodated, byarrangement, at the new building.Because they would not bestaying for a ‘full year’ he did notconsider them to be residentialstudents.

The long-awaited opening dayfor the farm was set for 3 March,to be open to the public just3 1/2 hours per day, summer andwinter.

Updates – Tramlink The agenda item on Tramlink

failed to materialise.Although the LDA Masterplan

provides for routing Tramlinkthrough the Park, and the LDAand Tramlink sit together on thesame Crystal Palace Park Steering

February’s Park Dialogue ‘Main Group’ meeting

Page 9

Group, the LDA insist no finaldecision on the preferred routehas been taken. Public requestsfor information should be directedto TfL on 020 7126 3915 orwww.tfl.gov.uk/trams

The Masterplan allows for theremoval of parkland at AnerleyHill from Ledrington Road to thehilltop at Crystal Palace Parade.The thousands of tons of spoilremoved are likely to be used asinfill around the National SportsCentre.

Should the Tramlink extensionbe routed through the Park andnot on the roadway at AnerleyHill, then effectively the ParkMasterplan funding is being usedto subsidise the Tramlink extension.

Present construction costs forthe Anerley Hill edge are quotedas £8 million.

Masterplan QuestionnaireThe facilitators of the dialogue

process, aware of the entrenchedopposition to the LDA’s Parkhousing proposals, included aquestionnaire with the ‘record’ ofthe Main Group meeting. It offersthe opportunity to list up to sixaspects of the Masterplan whichone would like to see changed. Itcarries the caveat: “There is no needto mention housing as the level ofopposition to this is well known.”

Although this ‘extra’ consul-tation is welcome, it is too lateand of little purpose. Theplanning application has beensubmitted and the LDA have beenat pains to state that it must beapproved in its entirety.

The next LDA Main GroupStakeholder Dialogue

meeting will be held on Saturday 17 May 2008,

venue and agenda to be arranged.

Call Erica Sutton of The Environment Council

on 020 7632 0117 for details.

The LDA’s skeleton OutlineBusiness Case states under‘Capital and Revenue Costs’ atpara. 5.2 : “The cost plan totals£67.5 million and providesindicative construction costs forCrystal Palace Park. The costplan is a present day fixed price atOctober 2007 price levels andexcludes, amongst other things,professional fees and VAT. Thecost plan does not includecostings for the NSC, RSC, newMuseum, Capel Manor studentaccommodation or potentialresidential masterplan proposals.In addition, the cost plan hasexcluded costs for phasing andremediation.”

The £67.5 million quoted islikely to be a serious mis-calculation,with no account taken ofconstruction-cost inflation(currently running at 7% p.a.increasing) and standardoperating-cost inflation. Thiscould bring the delivery cost ofthe Masterplan to more than £90million.

Estimates in para.5.3 put theannual maintenance and lifecyclecosts for an enhanced regionalPark to be nearly £3 million, upfrom the current annualmaintenance budget of just over£1 million.

Summary of Funding SourcesThe Outline Business Case

states at para.6.2: “The mainsource of match funding forCrystal Palace Park would be theNational Lottery, which shouldprovide increased opportunities tosecure funds for investment inregeneration, particularlyfollowing the 2012 Games. Thereshould be significantly higherlevels of Lottery fundingavailable, particularly as the fundwill benefit from the recovery ofits original funding from the saleof lucrative Olympic Park land.The residential housing optionwould be looked upon as a last

True cost of ‘Masterplan’ over £90 million

resort and, if taken up, wouldfund only basic local Parkimprovements.”

Income Generation from ParkFacilities

With the public not to becharged for many of the proposednew facilities and scantinformation on income-generatingevents, it is difficult to understandhow the target level of £3 millionp.a. running costs will beachieved. Major regular ticketedevents within the National SportsCentre would appear to be theonly way of generating therequired income, but furtherinformation is also lacking in theMasterplan’s supportingdocumentation.

There is a real danger that,should those major elementswithin the Masterplan, whichinvolve huge capital constructionand maintenance costs, such as thenorth and south greenhouses andthe tree top walkway, costing£14.6 million and £3.2 millionrespectively at October 2007 prices(without VAT and fees), failcommercially, they will becomethe proverbial ‘white elephant’.This could see their demolition oralternative, more profitable,commercial uses being found.

The LDA’s insistence that thisPark must be self-sustaining canonly be achieved by radicallyincreasing visitor numbers,resulting in a major events parkdesigned to achieve maximumincome generation to pay for thenew bling. Should incomestreams be inadequate then whatwill become of the Park?

WELL! WOULD YOUBELIEVE IT?

The Architects’ Journal has justannounced that: “MeadowcroftGriffin ... has been appointed tooversee the £85 million redevelopmentof Crystal Palace in south London.”

LDA threaten press discrimination

The CPCA has become aware that theLDA have threatened discriminationagainst local newspapers and other pressagencies who run articles which the LDAconsiders unfavourable to their strategy ofdelivering the Masterplan and Parkrestoration. This threatened discriminationwas to exclude them from all furthermedia involvement, such as press calls,releases and coverage of meetings.

This followed reports in the localGuardian of the promise given on theLDA website that the full Masterplanwould be submitted to Bromley only afterthe public had been allowed to give theirviews.

It’s ‘er ... a mistakeAn LDA spokesman then told the

newspaper that its statement on thewebsite had been “a mistake”. Thus theconsultation was closed without warningand without allowing the claimed “4,000people” (see page 6), who visited theMasterplan exhibition at Crystal Palacerailway station, to respond.

Tessa Jowell, MP for Dulwich and WestNorwood, is reported as saying: “Thisissue has for many years been hugelycontroversial in the area and it is of theutmost importance that local residents havethe opportunity to be consulted. This mustbe before, and in addition to, the statutoryprovisions.”

Jacqui Lait, MP for Beckenham, said:“My view is if the LDA say they are going todo something then they should do. Havingmade public that they will do it, it doesn’t lookterribly competent not to.”

Perhaps this is yet another indication ofmisleading information from the LDA andtheir total disregard for the results ofpublic consultation and opinion.

Page 10

First things lastHow to fund the restoration

LDA consultants, Latz + Partner spent almost two yearsproducing a ‘Masterplan’ to re-landscape Crystal Palace Parkfor a total expenditure (excluding consultants’ fees and VAT)far exceeding that of any other park in the country. Nowsubmitted to Bromley as a planning application, the LDA areasking the public how it should be funded.

Those attending meetings prior to the LDA’s extravagant‘marqueed consultations’ in 2004 urged them to establishsustainable sources of capital revenue before offering thepublic the carrot of a ‘money-no-object’ restoration of the Park.

Now, with the application in, the LDA insist that unless thepublic can identify possible sources of funding, parkland willhave to be sold to meet the bill. Thus, the LDA hasestablished a series of ‘Housing and Funding workshops’,with an agenda stating, “The meetings will focus on an objectiveanalysis of funding opportunities, and all those attending shouldnote that there will not be an opportunity to campaign either for oragainst housing”.

Unlike the Park Working Groups, the CPCA is able toparticipate at these meetings as there is no requirement to signa gagging agreement that would prevent reporting to ourcommittee and membership.

Catch 22While the Masterplan exhibition brochure claims that

“housing is … vital to ensure the deliverability of the Masterplan”,the meetings have been advertised to: “set out funding optionsfor the Masterplan and clarify circumstances under which housingincome might or might not be needed.” With such dichotomousstatements from the LDA it is hardly surprising that somebelieve the whole exercise to be an elaborate charade.

At the meetings, attendees suggested a number of possiblefunding sources. However, the LDA’s project director haswritten to the CPCA,“…we are not currently seeking fundingprior to the planning submission being considered because we havebeen advised that funding organisations require a greater degree ofsecurity and knowledge of where their money will be spent.”

In other words, the LDA insist that potential funders willnot show commitment until the planning application has beengranted – and the planning application includes housing. Butthe ‘Housing and Funding’ meetings have been convened toidentify funders to avoid the need for housing to be included. Confused? If it wasn’t so important, it would be humorous.

Contentious applications Lottery funding has been significantly reduced with the

diversion of funds to the London Olympics. With moneytight, funders are particularly wary of schemes that arecontentious or include elements that generate high levels ofpublic opposition, as in the recent example of the failure ofthe LDA’s application for BIG Lottery Funding.

But at least the sandwiches are good ...So far the really clear message from these meetings is that

most people present do not want to see the Park restored byhaving to sell bits of it off.

Page 11

EDITORIALI make no apology for the

extensive coverage in thisnewsletter of the LDA’sMasterplan - the biggestapplication ever received byBromley. As reported elsewherein this issue, the LDA/Latz‘Masterplan’ will change foreverthe nature of the Park and, tosome extent, the surroundingneighbourhoods.

Some may favour all, or some,of the elements of the Masterplan,while others have reservations.Whatever your view, the CPCAwould be failing its membership ifit did not fully consider thecomplex nature of the applicationand the precedents that will be setif it is approved by Bromley.

Originally the CPCA welcomedthe LDA’s intervention, believingthat at last the Park would receiveits due care and funding. To thendiscover that the Park will have topay for itself and that publicsubsidy will be limited, is, to saythe least, disappointing.

Selling supposedly protectedparkland for private luxuryhousing development emerged asa core policy of the LDA soonafter they announced theirintention to take control of thePark and National Sports Centrein 2004. Yet, despite claiming tolisten to the public, the LDArepeatedly fail to respect theresults of their own consultation.This has consistently demonstratedpublic opposition to sale ofparkland as a source of fundingthe improvements. The LDA arealso disregarding the views of7,000 people in ignoring thepetition presented to the LondonMayor.

Meanwhile the LDA engagecontractors, operating under thename ‘dialogue’, ostensibly toconsult with ‘hard to reachgroups’. Yet, the website of‘dialogue’ is more forthcoming,giving their objectives as:“maximise support for the schemeand minimise opposition” and bring“unparalled expertise to supportingplanning applications”.

The final Masterplan wasworked-up extensively, beforebeing presented to the public atthe Crystal Palace Station Exhibitionin a finished form. Would it nothave been better to first producesimple outline ideas and concepts,as happened with the favourablyreceived ‘piazza’ scheme for theTriangle Gate (subsequent, that is,to the LDA’s abandonment of theresidential)? Such an approachwould have allowed stakeholderengagement, proper comment andendorsement before committing tothis expensive and labyrinthineapplication.

By March 2009, 200-acre CrystalPalace Park is likely to betransferred from Bromley Councilto the LDA who have alreadyexercised option to take a l25-yearlease on the 38-acre site of theNSC ( to become a smaller‘Regional Centre’ post-2012).

But should one of the world’smost famous historic public parksbe transferred in toto by thepublicly-accountable LondonBorough of Bromley to the LDA ,a non-accountable quango agencyof Mayor Ken Livingstone? - anagency whose own website states:“The long-term implementation costsof the master-planning designs for thePark will need to be found from a mixof private and public money. Thepublic contribution will be limited.This means that any large-scaleworks would need commercialinvestment. As with the sportsfacilities, we will be looking for asustainable option that does notinvolve significant revenue subsidies”.

So where does this take us?Should our public parks befunded this way – sold forcommercial investment? Will thisbe how all our parks are fundedin future? What safeguards willthere be to protect them fromextreme over-development?

Increase in population densityand government diktat is forcingus into evermore crowdedaccommodation – blocks of flatsand apartments, with limited orno amenity space, often builtunder ‘back-garden’ development.If you’re young and lucky, youmay just be able to afford a tinyhouse with little or no garden.

Clearly then our precious parksare more vital than ever – a greenrefuge from the ever-encroachingurban jungle.

Commercial developers seeksubstantial return on investment.The proposal to build a replica ofthe Crystal Palace on the hilltop,which at first sight may appear anevocative concept, would in factresult in a 4 /5 star hotel, leisure,and retail complex. Though beingmarketed as a fairy story, in truthit would be desecration ofpublicly-owned Crystal PalaceParkland for private profit, yet issupported by the Leaders ofBromley and Croydon Councils,and, if his past comments can bebelieved, by Mayor Livingstone.

Crystal Palace Park is possiblyfacing it greatest threat to date.Eagle-eyed and greedy developers,encouraged by the LDA, arecalculating their profits frombuilding blocks of 180 flats on the

To be enjoyed by all - the current open expanse of the Italian Terrace

Page 12

Park – and once established as aprinciple - it is unlikely to stop here.

Transport for London sees acheap and easy way of extendingTramlink to Crystal Palace byrouting it through our Park; noneed to pay for land, pay compen-sation or compulsorily purchaseproperty to ensure its progressacross the capital and beyond.In fact, the Masterplan will mostconveniently remove the hugemound of soil and trees on AnerleyHill, so lowering the Park at thispoint to street level. Perfect forthe tram and at no cost to TfL.

The parks and public openspaces currently at the heart ofLondon neighbourhoods, mayafford a convenient means of TfLextending their £60 million permile tramlines. Instead of absolutepresumption against this use ofpublic space, the scene is being setto ensure that it becomes available,on the spurious claim of benefitingthe urban regeneration process.

Local authority spending onpark maintenance has droppedby a staggering 35% in the last17 years. A National Audit officepublication shows thatexpenditure on green space hasnot kept pace with the increasinglevel of overall local authority

(Mis)Guided Masterplan Walking ToursGuided walking tours of Crystal Palace Park conducted by master-

planners Latz, and LDA representatives, promoted as part of the LDAMasterplan exhibition, undertook to provide informative and practicalquestion-and-answer sessions on all aspects of the Masterplan.

There was little evidence of this and other claimed LDA openness andaccountability when, during a two-hour tour of the Park, any questionsconcerning construction of private housing in the Park were firmlyrejected, as were requests to visit the proposed sites.

SYDENHAM GATE

HOUSING BLOCKS

Six four-storey blocks, mistakenlyreferred to by the LDA as ‘Paxton-style’ villas, each with seven oreight luxury flats and somelimited car parking, will be builtwithin the boundaries of CrystalPalace Park, although not onMetropolitan Open Land. TheLDA will demolish the one-storeyOne O'clock Club and the ParkMaintenance Depot on CrystalPalace Park Road and relocatethem within the Park, within MOL.This will result in a net loss ofMetropolitan Open Land. The verynecessary St John’s Ambulancestation will go too - but they knownot where.

Just eight years ago, KathrynGustafson was commissioned to‘improve’ the Park. As well asincluding her trade-mark ‘waterfeature’ (known here as ‘the ditch’),over 300 mature and semi-maturetrees were felled to open the vistasof the Park. Now, Tilman Latz hasbeen commissioned and he haschosen to: “… define and improvethe edge of the Park …” - withmulti-storey blocks of flats. Allthis at tax-payers expense. Howlong will this idea last?

Only the residents are constantin all this. Those in Crystal PalacePark Road and neighbouring sidestreets are rightly incensed thatthese flats will not only blockviews into and out of the Park butincrease traffic on an already busyand often gridlocked road. Theirony is that existing properties onthe Park edge gave up half theirgardens to benefit the Park.

One has to ask who will benefitfrom the demolition of the existingbuildings and the construction ofsome 45 luxury apartmentsoverlooking the Park, except ofcourse the developers. The moneyraised from the sale of parklandwill provide little towards “basicimprovements to the Park”, after adeduction to HLF for publicmoney spent on the MaintenanceDepot, and the money needed torebuild the One O'clock Club.

spending, or the increasingamounts spent on other environ-mental and cultural services.

This means that parks will haveto compete in the queue for cashagainst the requirements of othervital public services. Schools,hospitals, social services, refusecollection, libraries etc., all claimpriority for limited resources.

As Bromley Council Leader,Stephen Carr, has just said, what isneeded are new initiatives topreserve Bromley’s open andgreen spaces - based upon anational policy. The Governmentneeds to recognise the very realproblems that our parks face;acknowledge the vitally importantrole they play in our lives anddevise a strategy that will ensurethat these green lungs in our urbanenvironment are protected for alltime, benefiting not just us now -but the generations to follow.

John Payne

Page 13

STATEMENT OF COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT

The Government requires thatall councils produce a ‘Statementof Community Involvement’ (SCI)that sets out how they will involveresidents, community groups andstakeholders in preparing andrevising planning developmentdocuments and how they willconsult on planning applications.

But Bromley is failing toimplement its own procedures forproper and effective communityinvolvement as outlined in their SCI.

The CPCA is included inBromley’s List of Consultees, yethas received no formal notificationof the LDA’s Crystal Palace Parkplanning application and, it mustbe assumed, neither have otherenfranchised bodies.

Bromley’s SCI states: “it isimportant to recognise that“significant” (major) applicationswill need to be subject to widerconsultation than those of a minornature. The definition of “major”applications includes: • a residential development for 10or more dwellings,• residential development on a siteof 0.5 hectares or more, • development involving abuilding(s) with a floor space of1000 square metres or more, • any other development on a siteof 1 hectare or more, • a major application likely toproduce significant public interestor controversy,

• an application likely to have asignificant physical impact on thesurrounding area or could be apotential departure from theadopted Development Plan.”

Bromley’s SCI can be found onits website: www.bromley.gov.uk- search for Statement ofCommunity Involvement.

Government GuidanceThe guidance notes produced

by the government (Publicity forPlanning Applications) are clearon the need for adequatepublicity for major planningapplications. Apart fromstatutory minimum requirementsthey state that local planningauthorities should consider whatother methods of publicity areavailable for attracting a wideraudience.

Lists of applications should beavailable in public places, such aslibraries, notice boards andcitizens’ advice bureaux.Planning authorities should alsoensure that the press, local civicand amenity societies andresidents associations are madeaware of proposed developments.

Again Bromley is not followinggovernment guidelines requiringpublication of all planningapplications. For example thetwo closest libraries to the Parkhave no information on theapplication whatsoever.

Recognise MOL- when it suits

In appendix 10 to the LDA’sStatement of CommunityInvolvement Addendum (pages56-58) which accompanied theplanning application, three pagesare devoted to a meeting on 11October 2007 between the LDAand Anerley Hill/LedringtonRoad residents.

The residents are concernedboth at the prospect of the trampassing just metres from theirback doors up to 20 times anhour, and the proposal for a five-storey residential block, forathletes and Capel Manorstudents, built on the much-valued green between StationRoad and Ledrington Road andwithin the Crystal PalaceConservation Area.

The residents asked whyalternative sites had not beenconsidered for this building. Ofthe four alternative locations theysuggested, the LDA consideredthem unsatisfactory as they wereall upon Metropolitan OpenLand, one of which contained “avery valuable small oak forest”.

The acceptance of presumptionagainst building on MetropolitanOpen Land on the south side ofthe Park is not matched by LDAeagerness to build onMetropolitan Open Land on thenorth side where at least 90“valuable” trees will be lost toblocks of flats.

Park improvements - before or after commercial development ?A question many may ask,

should the Masterplan applicationbe approved by Bromley, is what‘improvements’ will take placefirst; the promised children’splaygrounds, cafés, landscaping or,as many expect, the housing?

In reply to a question from theCPCA, regarding prioritisation ofworks at Crystal Palace Park, LDASenior Project Manager, MarkLloyd, wrote: “On the matter ofprioritisation it is my own view, which

I know is shared by Robin Buckle ofDesign for London that the terracesare the area most in need of attention,and an area where there may be a realchance of an external funding bodytaking an interest.

In the event that Housing wasdeemed necessary to support therenovation of the Park then I could notsee that Rockhills could proceed untilthe caravan club site issue was solved.The Sydenham Gate scheme would beless dependent upon third parties. It is

my personal view that the ItalianTerraces should receive quite urgentattention, and we would work toprioritise their renovation beforeanything else, especially as HLF maybe interested in making a grant forthis area.”

Hardly a comprehensive reply,but perhaps it is naïve to expectthat elements of the Masterplan,other than the terracing and thehousing, are anywhere on theagenda for the foreseeable future?

Page 14

April 2000 When candidate Ken Livingstone was asked at a Kingswood School Mayoral Campaign meeting, if it was right for councils to sell parkland and open space for commercial and other types of development against the wishes of local people., he said: “we have all the brownfield sites we need to develop housing … and it would be a disaster to lose what little of our green spaces remain.”

March 2002 As London Mayor, Ken Livingstone wrote in the foreword of a consultation report on Crystal Palace Park: “The decline in quality and loss of green space is of grave concern to me. My London Plan (spatial development strategy) will seek to protect and improve parks and open spaces of local and regional significance. Improvements are needed, but not developments of a scale best suited to anurban town centre.”

March 2004 Derek Newman, LDA Project Executive for Crystal Palace Park, gave assurances at a public stakeholder meeting that “the park as a park takes precedence” and that “the LDA will not take land out of park use.”

July 2005 At a Park Working Group meeting, the LDA revealed proposals for, “‘Enabling development’ of over 200 luxury private apartments and villas” and asked they be kept secret until ‘officially announced’ three months later.

October 2005 At a Mayor’s Question Time, Ken Livingstone said “I do not support any proposals for majorhousing development in Crystal Palace Park.”

Nov/Dec 2006 LDA Newsletter: “…one of the options being considered is allowing limited residential development on the edge of the park…”

January 2007 LDA Newsletter briefly mentioned housing for Rockhills gate “on land not currently open to the public” and “...one option being considered is recreating the row of Paxton villas that historicallystood alongside the Park on Crystal Palace [Park] Road.”

Note: Both above statements are incorrect. The Caravan Club centre is open to the public, and there were no Paxton villas. The houses currently on the edge of the Park were built by the Crystal Palace Company, long after Paxton’s death, to save this private company from bankruptcy.

March 2007 LDA Newsletter: “...there is increasing consensus in favour of the majority of proposals for the park and now the consultation is moving on to discuss the remaining issues such as the Transport for London Tramlink proposals and residential options.”

May 2007 LDA Newsletter: “...we have more events planned for the next few weeks including a workshop to discuss issues around funding (housing and other options) in Crystal Palace Park.”

July 2007 LDA Newsletter: “No decision has been made on housing and it is an option which may not be used.”

August 2007 LDA Newsletter: “Housing is the last resort, not the first choice – the LDA has decided to include the proposals for housing at Rockhills and Sydenham Gate in the masterplan. Housing is only being included as an option. The decision to use this option would only be made if funding sources, to enable the delivery of the basic ‘improved local park’ plans, are not forthcoming.”

October 2007 LDA exhibition brochure states: “Housing … is vital to ensure the deliverability of the masterplan” and “… we have concluded that the development of up to 180 purpose-built residential units at two locations on the periphery of the Park (Rockhills and Sydenham) is likely to be required.”

December 2007 LDA consultants, The Environment Council, wrote: “The LDA has proposed some housing development in the masterplan as it believes income from residential sales will be needed to help fundpark improvements… however, it has also clearly stated that it regards housing as a funding source oflast resort and that, if acceptable alternatives could be found, it will drop the residential proposals.”

December 2007 LDA Project Manager, Mark Lloyd said at the first Housing & Funding meeting: “If we can fund the Park without housing the LDA would take that.” And LDA facilitator Nigel Westaway said: “the LDA has recognised the opposition to housing and views it as a last resort.”

March 2008 LDA Newsletter: “The Dialogue Process ... Key issues discussed include ...” and no mention of housing proposals in this list or anywhere in the publication.Masterplan Questionnaire: “There is no need to mention housing as the level of opposition to this is well known.”

Editors Note: This is the abridged version.

A PROGRESSION OF DECEPTION AND DECEIT

Page 15

LDA WANT CARAVAN CLUB OUTRemoval of publicly-accessible facility

for private housing estateThe largest area of

parkland that the LDAwant to sell-off for housingis at Rockhills, home of thepopular internationalcamping and caravan club,opened here on 12September 1989 by LordBernard Weatherill, localMP and Speaker of theHouse of Commons.

The LDA’s continueddeception, in claiming thatit is not publicly accessible,is a cynical attempt tojustify its removal - it is,after all, the public whouse it.

The Park has been home to a camping site since 1952, and isconsidered an acceptable use of Metropolitan Open Land. The CaravanClub are adamant that they wish to remain on this most suitable site towhich they have devoted so much time, care and money.

GLA/LDAStakeholder‘Dialogue’ meetings from 2003 to thepresent• 11 Main Group meetings• 22 Park Working Group • 12 Sports Working Group • 10 Museum Task Group • 7 Planning Framework Task

Group • 4 Combined Park & Sports

Working Group • 2 Combined Working Group • 1 Steering Group Meeting • 2 Special Meetings on Housing

& Funding• 2 Strategic Working Group and

• 8 Steering Group meetings attended by the LDA, the Mayor’s office, TfL, London Assembly members and ...

NO community representatives.(The above statistics do not includethe many Park exhibitions andnumerous ‘roadshows’.)

Total: 81 meetings Cost to the public: £ ?? millionsPublic input: Considerable, but totally disregarded.Effectiveness: Little or none, asdemonstrated by the Masterplan. Likely outcome: Approval of a£67.5 million Park application,funded in part by the sale ofirreplaceable parkland for luxuryblocks of flats, and the establishingof a dangerous precedent.

LDA AccountabilityFollowing GLA concern at the

non-accountability of some LDA-funded projects, the BBC reportedon 7 February 2008 that: “the LDAwill be conducting a systematicreview of the funding of projects.”Perhaps this will include themillions spent so far on CrystalPalace Park, with just the removalof a bridge and some fences toshow for it.

Mature trees to be axed for flatsMany beautiful mature trees will be felled to make

way for the private development that will replacethe Club. These trees are identified in theMasterplan as “Category A trees: These are highquality, high amenity trees which should be retained if atall possible. Significant amendments to any proposeddevelopment should be considered before removing thesetrees. Similarly Category B trees which “arereasonably high quality trees whose retention is desirable…” will also be destroyed.

New road system at Sydenham HillIt is expected that the proposed new private

housing estate will require a new road layout atSydenham Hill/ Westwood Hill to access the 135luxury flats.

Postcode LotteryOnce again, Bromley Council

have failed to inform the residentsof its borough who will be mostaffected by major changes proposedfor Crystal Palace Park. Just asmany received nothing about theLDA’s 24-hour, 365-days-a-yearliquor licence application, neitherhave they received formal notifi-cation of the LDA’s planningapplication for the Park, which willmaterially affect them, parts ofwhich will be devastating for localpeople, and to which they have aright to object.

Apparently, Bromley’s practiceis to send out letters to residentswithin a certain radius of thepostcode of the subject of theplanning application. In the caseof Crystal Palace Park, LondonSE20 8DT (Thicket Roadentrance), it is hardly surprisingthat roads within 600 metres ofthe Park but with an SE19postcode receive no information.Is everything done by computerthese days? Does common senseor initiative have no place in ourmodern world? It would seem not.

Seven years ago, KathrynGustafson’s landscaping schemesresulted in the demise of theannual Spring Bank Holiday motorracing event at Crystal PalacePark. However, this popular eventmay be revived. The LDA andBromley are discussing with theorganisers, Sevenoaks and DistrictMotor Club, the possibility ofreintroducing the event to the Park- effectively our own mini-Goodwood festival.

The CPCA met representativesof the Club to discuss how such anevent could be staged in this age ofenvironmental concerns. The Clubare keen to make the event as‘green’ as possible, using bio-fuel

Return of Motor Racing to the Palace? technology in vehicles able toaccept it, and keeping noise to aminimum. Additionally, they mayinclude educational displaysalongside working historic cars.

The return of this special eventwould revive the spirit and historyof motor racing at Crystal Palace,allowing young and old alike to

Page 16

The Architectural Panel (TAP)Bromley use the services of five local architects to advise on major

planning applications, known as The Architects Panel for Bromley,c/o Bromley Civic Centre.

The mindset of this panel of architects becomes clear when, in theirMasterplan assessment, as noted in their minutes of June 2007, they say:“a clear implementation programme is vital to achieve the Masterplan. It is feltthat the proposed housing elements do not detract from the amenity of the Park.The Park needs a strong edge. The Panel fully support the inclusion of housingto generate match funding.” They conclude that it is: “an intelligent approachwhich, if implemented, would provide an exciting and successful park.”

The architects on the Panel appear unconcerned by the sale of publicparkland for private housing development and appear unmindful of theprecedent it would set. But what else might one expect from those in thebusiness of building houses!

enjoy the ‘paddockatmosphere’ of aneclectic mix ofvintage and moremodern racingmachinery, whilemixing with theirequally eclecticowners anddrivers.

LDA INVOLVEMENT IN

CRYSTAL PALACE PARK -PEOPLE OR POLITICS?

LDA involvement in CrystalPalace Park began when its boss,Mayor Livingstone, decided in2003 that London should host the2012 Olympic Games. Such bidwould require a visit from theInternational Olympic Committeeto assess London’s hosting capability.The obvious showpiece would bethe annual athletics Grand Prix atCrystal Palace but the visitingdelegation might not have beentoo impressed by the dreadfulstate of the track and the athletes’facilities - in fact the 2004 eventwas due to be cancelled.

To establish the UK’s Olympiccredentials, Ken Livingstone hadno choice but to take control andrefurbish the Stadium (at a cost of£1.5 million), but, the then Headof Bromley’s Leisure ServicesRobbie Stoakes, argued that theStadium and the National SportsCentre building were a package.Mr Stoakes could see the benefitof Bromley being relieved of thisannual £2 million drain on itsresources, a situation inherited onthe demise of the GLC in 1986.

And so the LDA took a 125-yearlease on this 38 acres of the Parkknown as the MDS (MajorDeveloped Site) which includesthe Stadium and the NSC. Thusthe 2012 Olympics was won.Since then, the LDA has renegedon its popular promise to demolishthe ailing NSC, which wascardinal to its regeneration of thePark, and the date for its promisedmodern replacement recedes everfurther into the distant future.

Page 17

The much-hyped newconstruction at Crystal Palace Parkis not, as claimed, a ‘rebuild’ of theCrystal Palace. It is a vastcommercial complex, marketed asa fairy story, but in truth adesecration of public parkland forprivate profit.

This massive scheme, with itsassociated infrastructure, wouldoccupy up to 20 acres of CrystalPalace Park hilltop – the areaoriginally earmarked for theabortive multiplex. However, thisparody of the Hyde Park CrystalPalace is anything but miniature.At a third the size (althoughcurrently quoted as two thirds thesize) of the one million square feetSydenham Crystal Palace, itsprime use would be as a 4/5 starhotel, with conference facilities,unspecified leisure/recreation usesand other commercial activities.

Sue Nagle, a former resoluteopponent of major builtdevelopment on the hilltop, butnow a leading proponent of theso-called ‘rebuild’, claims in theNorwood Society’s Spring 2008Review that: “The scheme, estimatedat £265 million, will be privatelyfunded” and that: “Not one pennyfrom the public purse will be necessary!”Ms Nagle modestly claims that theproposed hotel, recreation andleisure complex: “is going to be themost prestigious building in the world”.

As a blatantly commercialventure, one would not expect itto receive benefit from the publicpurse, but with breathtakingarrogance Ms Nagle calls uponBromley Council to commitvaluable land they hold in trustfor their council tax-payers toenable this commercial speculation.

Corporate investors would notbelieve their good fortune shouldsuch an outrageous strategy besuccessful. Some might considerthe ‘rebuild’ an audacious attemptto railroad-through commercialdevelopment, in a pastiche ofPaxton’s Crystal Palace, whilsthijacking public land worthmillions of pounds.

Those who visited Ms Nagle’srecent exhibition in Church Road,may not have been told that theywere being asked to give theirsupport on being shown aredundant video that relied uponthe 1851 Hyde Park Palace andnot the 1854 Sydenham Palace -now the architect’s preferredoption. Surprisingly, despiteclaims that: “funding is in place”,the architect is unable to providean updated DVD due to costrestraint, and no planningapplication supported byEnvironmental and TransportImpact assessments has beensubmitted to Bromley.

Blanket opposition to themultiplex revolved around, notjust permanent loss of parkland,but also the damaging effect onthe surrounding area and roads ofa large one-stop commercialdevelopment with an insatiableappetite for a procession of servicevehicles and cars.

When Bromley granted planningpermission for the multiplex theydid so in the awareness that aninvestment of this scale could notbe allowed to fail. Accordingly,the applicant was given carteblanche for possible change of useto ensure the continued viabilityof the development. The samewould be true of the proposedCrystal Palace building with itsmulti-million pound investment.

If for whatever reason, theoperation of the proposed 4/5 star

hotel-recreation-leisure complexwere to become unviable,conversion of the complex toexpensive luxury apartmentswould be a likely outcome.

Worryingly, Mayor Livingstone,Cllr Stephen Carr, Leader ofBromley Council and Cllr MikeFisher, Leader of CroydonCouncil, are quoted as supportingthe idea despite the absence of aplanning application,Environmental ImpactAssessment, Traffic ImpactAssessment or basic businessplan. Such proposal would becontrary to the Mayor’s LondonPlan and Bromley’s andCroydon’s UDPs, which maintainthat protection of MetropolitanOpen Land is paramount.

Some might favour a smallstructure, commemoratingPaxton’s original Palace thatwould provide access andprotection to the Subway and thetree-lined ridge, with possibleuses that were not overtlycommercial. It would, of course,need to respect the Crystal PalaceActs and be ancillary to MOL uses.

Would future generations thankus for allowing yet more depletionof green open space for furthercommercial exploitation of apublic park? What is reallyneeded to enable ‘regeneration’ ofthe area is the restoration of thisonce beautiful park – to becomeagain a landmark in its own right.

Proposed ‘rebuild’ of the Crystal Palace

Another Crystal Palace replica - Homebase, Catford

Page 18

FROM OURLOCALCOUNCILLORS

Crystal Palace Ward,Bromley

I have requested that police andthe Council look into the problemof speeding traffic down CrystalPalace Park Road and alongAnerley Park.

I have also managed toascertain that rumours thatBromley may be considering ‘partnight lighting’, where street lightsare switched off between midnightand 5am, are untrue. There are noplans to move away from all-nightstreet lighting. If you areconcerned, however, aboutlighting in a particular area pleasewrite [email protected] orphone Bromley on 020 8464 3333.

The owners of Melbourne Courthave been written to, asking thatthey look into installing lightingon the street and that they tidy thesite and keep fly-tipping at bay.

Disappointing news on localbus services: Route 358 is to beextended to run earlier in themorning and later into the night,though a 24-hour service has beenruled out. Although Route 354and Route 356 are to betransferred from Metrobus toSelkent and new single deck busesintroduced, they have refused toimprove the frequency or add aSunday service for the 354.

Cllr Tom PapworthLiberal Democrat CouncillorCrystal Palace Ward

College Ward,Southwark

As CPCA members will beaware, the Gipsy Road Post Officeat Paxton Green has beenearmarked for closure in the PostOffice’s “Network ChangeProgramme” initiated by theGovernment.

College Ward Councillors havebeen running a joint campaignwith the Gipsy Hill Councillors inLambeth against this closure. TheGipsy Road Post Office is aprofitable office under the PostOffice’s own criteria and servesnot only residents in Gipsy Hill,which is in the top 10% ofdeprived wards in England, butmany elderly residents in Dulwichwho rely on this office.

We have raised a petitionsupported by hundreds of localresidents, and submitted acomprehensive rebuttal of thePost Office’s report proposing thatthis branch is closed. Publicconsultation closed in early April,

and we can now only hope thatthe Post Office will see sense overthis proposal.

If you take this threat to thePost Office with the paucity oflocal public transport, such as thereduction in the frequency of theNo 3 bus, it is no wonder thatDulwich residents are beginningto feel left stranded without anylocal services.

Earlier this year, the LondonDevelopment Agency (LDA)submitted plans to BromleyCouncil for the redevelopment ofCrystal Palace Park, whichincludes the development ofprivate housing on parkland. Weare not happy about this proposaland have asked SouthwarkCouncil to make representationsabout this development and thepotential impact of increases intraffic in the area.

Lewis RobinsonCollege Ward (Conservative)[email protected]

Cllrs Andrew Gibson, Shirley Houghton, Lewis Robinson & Michelle Holford at theGipsy Road Post Office.

If you care about the area, join the CPCA.

Together, your voice counts.

Page 19

Mayor of Lambeth, Andrew Gibson visiting Crown Lane Primary School on 9 February2008 for the first “People First Expo’ which celebrated the work of local organisations.

Gipsy Hill Ward,Lambeth

Readers will be aware of thefurore surrounding proposals toclose post office branches. What isperhaps less well known are thetendentious arguments putforward for closure, and the fullimpact on local communities wereclosures to go ahead.

Gipsy Hill residents face theclosure of two post offices – onCentral Hill (actually in Croydon,but it serves Lambeth residents,too) and on Gipsy Road.

The closure programme is verywrong in scale and to a largeextent in principle, too. TheGovernment claims that theclosure programme (which isactually implemented by the PostOffice itself) is necessary becausethe Post Office is losing money.But this views the Post Office as acompany only. In reality, the PostOffice is a public service providedby Government. For example, ithas a duty to provide postalservices throughout the UK – aduty not imposed on itscompetitors. (In return, it has amonopoly on small mail items,but the value of this has beeneroded through inflation).Therefore, if we look at thesubsidy to the Post Office as ‘cost’of a service, rather than a ‘loss’,this casts the matter in a differentlight.

The closure process is deeplyunfair. For example, the PostMaster in Central Hill wants tocontinue his service, yet he tellsme that other post masters NOTincluded in the closureprogramme would quite like tocease counter services and takethe compensation package.

The case of Gipsy Road is evenmore bizarre. The Post Office isvery profitable. The Post Mastercould make money by taking thecompensation and investing itelsewhere, but his commitment tohis staff and local community issuch that he is determined to fightclosure. Its inclusion in theprogramme is inexplicable: localcouncillors and shopkeepers are

campaigning hard that it shouldbe retained.

The effect of closure would besevere. If Gipsy Road closed, forexample, customers would have tomake their way up Gipsy Hill toWestow Hill to access postalservices. Many simply won’tbother, and will use alternativeservices, such as the Internet. Butpensioners and others who ‘need’the counter service will be in areal bind.

Also, the Post Offices attractshoppers to their respectiveshopping parades. Gipsy Road ishome to a variety of family-ownedbusinesses: they represent exactlythe type of shopping mix thatcouncils and Governments wantto see. Yet one hand of theGovernment is seemingly workingagainst the goals of the other.

More worryingly, there is adispiriting acceptance of publicservices withdrawing from thepublic realm. Lunham RoadHousing Office is much reduced,Lambeth police stations are underthreat, and Town Centres arebeing ‘consolidated’. Even publichouses are closing under theweight of taxation and smokingbans. Our cumulative inheritanceis being eroded piecemeal, with nostrategy and scant meaningfulconsultation. Let us hope that inour campaign to save our PostOffices, we can stand successfully

and thwart this misguided erosionof the public realm and cry“Stop!”

Cllr Andrew GibsonGipsy Hill Ward

The CPCA congratulates AndrewGibson on his successful term asLambeth Mayor and thanks him forhis support in challenging theCawnpore Street overdevelopment.

Property Investment LandNew Developments

ValuersResidential Sales

Residential LettingsProperty Management

12 Westow Street, Upper Norwood London SE19 3AH

Tel: 020 8653 4444Fax: 020 8653 9465

www.coopergiles.com

the crystal palace agent

Goodliffe Hall Good News

The CPCA is very pleased tohear that planning permissionhas been granted for theproposed new Goodliffe Hall.

Rev’d Rumsey reported thatLambeth Planning contactedthe architects to confirm theyhave been given approval forthe project without anysignificant qualifications oramendments.

Andrew said: “This isexcellent news, and just the boostwe needed. With the right capitalbacking, we shall be set fair toproceed with our vision to buildcommunity in Gipsy Hill. Manythanks for your continued support.”

As many of you know, theCPCA uses the Goodliffe Hallfor its AGM and quiz nights,and we support the efforts ofthe fund-raising team toprovide a new hall for thecommunity.For more information contact:

Rev'd Andrew RumseyVicar of Gipsy Hill, SE19

020 8670 0385 or visit:www.gipsyhill.org.uk

Useful telephone numbers

Local Councils:

Bromley: 8464 3333

Croydon: 8686 4433Lambeth: 7926 1000Southwark: 7525 5000Lewisham: 8314 6000

Page 20

ViewsPROMISED IMPROVEMENTS TO

TRIANGLE SAFETY

Following repeatedfailures of thepedestrian lights inWestow Hill(outsideWoolworths), theCPCA wrote toLambeth andCroydon wardcouncillors,highlighting thisdangeroussituation andsuggesting thatperhaps a zebra

crossing might be a better solution asit would never break down.

Croydon councillor GeorgeFilbey agreed with the installationof zebra crossings around theTriangle, for greater pedestriansafety and also to slow the traffic.His comment that: “Since theabolition of two-way running the roadshave become race tracks” is a viewshared by many.

Lambeth Cllr Andrew Gibsonwas equally concerned about thesesafety issues and the repeatedfailure of the crossing, and askedthat Lambeth officers raise thematter with Croydon.

Cllr Gibson will also be raisingwith TfL and council officers theissue of the incredibly dangerousjunction at Westow Hill/CentralHill where pedestrians trying to

cross north or south are notprovided with any crossing facilitywhatsoever; taking their lives intheir hands by having to weavebetween constantly flowingvehicles.

This one, two and three-laneone-way system with fast movingcars, lorries and buses, smackthrough a district centre, has beenkilling trade since May 2002 whenthe ‘Triangle’ gyratory wasintroduced against the wishes ofthe majority. It speaks well of theagility of Crystal Palace residentsthat none has been killed.

This road is under the control ofTransport for London, aptly titled,in that it looks after ‘transport’ toget from A to B as fast as possible,with seemingly no considerationfor pedestrians, shops or shoppers.

If you care about the area, join the CPCA.

Together, your voice counts.

Page 21

P O L I C I N G T H E T R I A N G L EThose who have lived in the

area for any amount of time willbe aware of the anomalies causedby the meeting of the boroughs atthe Triangle. It is difficult to thinkof other areas of London where theboroughs border at a town centre.

In policing terms, this has alsocaused problems as each boroughtook an area up to Crystal PalaceParade and tended not to lookbeyond their boundaries.

Following extensive publicconsultation, the problem has beenaddressed by the formation of across-border Safer NeighbourhoodTeam, made up of officers fromCroydon. The team consists of oneSergeant, two Constables and fourPolice Community SupportOfficers, based at 19 Central HillSE19 (previously MAM MotorSpares), and has the official title of‘Triangle Safer NeighbourhoodSupport Team’ or ‘The TriangleTeam’ for short.

I am the current Sergeant andhave been in place sinceSeptember 2007.

In simple terms, we have soleresponsibility for the Triangle. Wethen overlap the existing SaferNeighbourhood Teams that borderthe Triangle for the Londonboroughs of Bromley, Croydonand Lambeth.

In Bromley, we cover down asfar as Hamlet Road. In Croydon,

we cover as far as Hermitage Roadand Chevening Road. In Lambeth,we cover from the Parade as far asRoman Rise and down Gipsy Hillas far as the railway station. Theteam do not cover Southwark.However, just to complicatematters, I make sure that the teamwalk down Farquhar Road, alongJasper Road and regularly throughJasper Passage.

We have seen substantialreductions in robbery sinceSeptember, simply by ensuring avisible presence following eachschool day, in the area aroundCrystal Palace Parade and alongWestow Hill.

We have worked closely withthe team from Crystal Palace Ward(Bromley) to ensure safety duringthe funfair at Crystal Palace Park.We also worked with the CrystalPalace Ward and Gipsy Hill Ward(Lambeth) teams to ensure thatthere were no muggings before orafter the fireworks display inNovember.

A cross-borough Pub Watchscheme has been established toensure that our pubs remainpeaceful places in which to enjoy atrip out.

Warrants were recently executedat three addresses, and this wasdone with the help of the GipsyHill Safer Neighbourhood Team.

We have undertaken jointpatrols on the Bromley side tocombat car crime, and some plainclothes work with the CrystalPalace Team.

The team have made a numberof arrests for burglary and robberyin recent months. In particular, inDecember, PCSO Matt Joyner andI spotted a male in one of thebookmakers, who was wanted fora commercial robbery. He wasarrested and has been chargedwith 5 robberies, which took placein bookmakers’ shops across SouthLondon.

We have worked closely withthe Upper Norwood SaferNeighbourhood Team (Croydon)to reduce burglaries in the area.

Probably the most beneficialaspect of this team is that weensure that information is passedbetween the boroughs in order tocombat criminal activity.

I would ask readers to passinformation to us about criminalactivity or suspicious behaviour. Ifyou happen to ring the team forthe wrong area, we do talk to eachother, so the information should bepassed on.

Crystal Palace is a nice part ofLondon. We aim to work to fullcapacity to do our part to keepcrime in the area as low as possibleand the criminal on the back foot.

Sergeant Nick Tooher

The period January 2007 toNovember 2007 has seen a small,but welcome, reduction inaccidents in and around theTriangle. Judging from anecdotalreports, this is not so much due tothe more considerate driving ofmotorists and others, but probablythe result of pedestrians beingmore aware of the danger of thelocal road layout.

Reported accidents totalled 21,with just 4 - fortunately slightincidents -2 involving motorcyclists,occurring in the Triangle itself.

Anerley Hill and Road saw 3serious accidents involving a mixof cars, a motorcycle and a cyclist.

But ask pedestrians what is theirperception of the speed of trafficaround the Triangle and theoverwhelming response will bethat it is much too fast. And theywill almost certainly point out thecontinued difficulty of crossingsafely anywhere within theTriangle, with no pedestriancrossing at all on Church Road ornorth/south at the GipsyHill/Westow Street crossroads.

Accident statistics Your Gipsy Hill SaferNeighbourhood Team:P/Sgt Lee-Ann Mills, PC Shane Given, PC Christine Swinburn, PCSO Geraldine Simpson, PCSO Martin Cloke, PCSO Greg Oakland Call them on: 020 8721 [email protected]/saferneigh-bourhoodsAlways remember - in anemergency dial 999

Go Green and Shop atthe Farmers’ MarketsFarmers’ Markets offer good

quality, fresh and seasonal localproduce grown usually within afifty mile radius. The variety ofstalls vary from market to marketbut one can usually find freshseasonal fruit and vegetables,outdoor-reared meat, bread andcakes, local cheeses, preserves,olives, fruit juices and even plants.

West Norwood Farmers Marketcontinues to be held on the1st and3rd Saturday of the month at WestNorwood High Street at thejunctionwith Lancaster Avenue, between10am and 3pm.

A Farmers’ Market at StreathamHigh Road, outside the OdeonCinema, is due to start in April for atrial period. It will be held on the2nd Saturday of the month between10 am and 2 pm.

Dulwich Farmers’ Market, heldon the 4th Sunday of the month, inthe grounds of Dulwich College hasa wide variety of produce stalls andarts and crafts in the cloisters.

Hillyfields Farmers’ Market,Brockley is held on the 2ndSaturday of the month, 10 am to 3 pm.

Every Sunday morning a largemarket is held in the schoolgrounds on Elms Road, ClaphamCommon Southside.

We look forward to seeing yousoon at one of the Farmers Markets.

For further information: [email protected]: 07775 736 116 or visitwww.myfarrmersmarket.co.uk

Support Kent Farmers and reduce food miles!

Crystal Palace - Norwood Heightswritten by

Brian Dann and Audrey Hammondand designed by Mike Conrad. Featuring Audrey’s paintings , it is available from the CPCA

020 8670 4395 [email protected] Crow on the Hill

50 Westow Street SE19 3AF020 8771 8831 [email protected],

Kirkdale Books272 Kirkdale, Sydenham SE26 4RS

020 8778 4701 [email protected]

Page 22

REMEMBRANCE DAYSUNDAY 11 NOVEMBER 2007

Local people braved the cold, to remember those lost to war, in a movingservice conducted by the Salvation Army, at the Remembrance memorial inWestow Street. Officers from the ‘Triangle’ Safer Neighbourhood Teamensured safety from passing traffic, and the Salvation Army Captain gave apoignant reading of the words of G.A.Studdert Kennedy:

Waste of Muscle, waste of Brain,Waste of Patience, waste of Pain,

Waste of Manhood, waste of Health,Waste of Beauty, waste of Wealth,

Waste of Blood and waste of Tears,Waste of Youth’s most precious Years,Waste of ways the Saints have trod,

Waste of Glory, Waste of God,-War!

A Salvation Army bugler sounded the ‘Last Post’ marking the start of thetwo minute silence, while in the far distance the sound of gun-fire inWhitehall could clearly be heard. The buglers’ ‘Reveille’ ended the silence,and wreaths were laid by representatives of organisations of the UpperNorwood and Crystal Palace area, whilst the Salvation Army band played.

Emmaus offers a home, Emmaus offers work and

Emmaus offers hope.

Please support their work to helpthe homeless in our community.

Visit their shop on Knights Hill,near West Norwood Station, find

out more on www.emmaus.org.ukor call Majonne on 8761 4276

Page 23

After two years, and endlesscorrespondence from the CPCAand others, the unlawfully erectedilluminated 48-sheet advertisinghoarding in the TriangleConservation Area, on the cornerof Church Road and Anerley Hillhas been served an enforcementnotice by Bromley.

Those responsible have failed todismantle and remove it withinthe 21 days and the onus now fallson Bromley to remove this blightfrom our town centre.

Environmental Vandalism - two years on and it’s stillblighting the Triangle Conservation Area.

Would the Hampstead Conservation Area have suffered this blight this long?

Crime on our street - the unlawful sign, even used by the London Mayor - twice! Are these people now planning its replacement?

Anti-terroristbarricades in theTriangle

You do not have to be a teenagevandal to cause misery in residentialareas. Environmental vandalismcan be caused by senior members ofthe community, as can be seen in thephotographs. This hideousbarricade, constructed by a localbusiness (STG Resources Ltd), in theheart of the Conservation Areabetween Haynes Lane andBedwardine Road, has effectivelyblocked public access between thetwo roads, a right of way that hasbeen enjoyed for many years. It alsothreatens the safety of thoseresidents living nearby, as vehicularaccess to emergency service vehicleshas been compromised.

The reason for this barricade isunclear, although it may be aprecursor to a redevelopmentproposal. Croydon Council have sofar shown reluctance to becomeinvolved, even though there arerights of way and conservation areaissues for which they haveenforcement powers.

The dangerous and anti-social barricade on Haynes Lane leading to Bedwardine Road,in the Crystal Palace Triangle Conservation Area.

Page 24

Croydon Council continues totake every opportunity to unjustlylabel the much-loved and popularUpper Norwood Joint Library as“inefficient” and “lacking expertise”and is considering the commis-sioning of yet another costly libraryreview.

This review has been unilaterallyproposed by Croydon withoutreference to the vested authority ofthe Joint Committee, the ChiefLibrarian, or indeed the otherfunding partner, Lambeth Council.

The review, claimed as an“improvement project”, is an attemptto seek efficiencies in our library. ButCroydon has chosen to ignore itsown impartial, independent reportthat confirmed our Library as “highlycost-effective but drastically under-funded and under-staffed”.

Croydon’s library funding– the facts

Up to 1983, Lambeth andCroydon honoured their equalfunding obligations under its ‘JointLibrary Agreement’, withappropriate annual increases. Butfor the next twelve years fundingbecame erratic with each boroughproviding different levels of financialsupport.

Matters came to a head in 1991when Croydon Council completedan ‘efficiency review’ in a futileattempt to find savings from analready emaciated budget.

In 1992 Croydon Councilcontributed a total of £155,000.Fifteen years later its annualcontribution had increased by just£1,000.

Promised increases over the nextthree years for UNJL will averagejust 13%. In the meantime theCentral Library’s budget hasincreased by 201% and ‘satellite’branch libraries’ budgets haveincreased by an average of 99%.

Double standards or duplicity?When Cllr Steve Hollands,

Croydon’s Cabinet member forCulture and UNJL managementcommittee member, insists publicly

that our Library needs to be “runmore efficiently and cost effectively” heconveniently ignores Croydon’s ownindependent consultants’ report,which concluded: “…that UNJL isunderfunded by circa £160,000 perannum in comparison [with] Croydonlibraries…”

Cllr Hollands’ attempts to providecorroborative financial data tosupport his and Croydon officers’funding comparisons demonstrateinconsistency and widely varyingfigures.

The future?If Croydon wishes to make savings

on its library services then it shouldbe looking to its own libraries, ratherthan the UNJL who have beenpraised by independent specialistsfor the standard of service they offer.

Library users and supporterscontinue to speak out against thepresent situation that sees a £1.2million newly-refurbished libraryreceive only a fraction of thefunding it needs. UNJL is nowsuffering from the cumulative effectsof years of under-funding, whilst themoney available to librarieselsewhere in the borough increasessteadily year after year.

What is clear is that adequatefunding needs to be quickly found ifUNJL, and the wonderful service itoffers us, is to remain a lynchpin ofour community.

The CPCA will continue to fightfor the future of this well-used andmuch-loved library, as will localpoliticians and local people.

To join the UNJL campaignIf the Library is important to you,please don’t hesitate to join theCampaign to fight for its future.You can be as involved or notinvolved as you wish, but being astrong membership base sends aclear message to the Councils thatthe community cares.

Membership is just £3 p.a.

Please write to: The Secretary, 5 Becondale Road, SE19 1QJ

or email:[email protected]

www.unlc.org.uk

The fight continues to save Upper Norwood Joint Library

Give and takeIn 2007/8 Croydon ‘gave’ the

library an additional £10,000. At thesame time it removed £22,361 fromthe Library’s reserves on thedisingenuous grounds that it was anecessary repayment in respect of an‘overspend’ of the library’srefurbishment project in 2003. TheLibrary’s Joint Committee challengedthis and eventually just over £20,000was restored to the Library’s reservefund.

Cllr Steve Hollands claimed that,“…auditors have pinpointed theadministrative slip when incorrect codeswere keyed into a computer”. Yet just afew months previously, Croydonfinance officers robustly defendedtheir decision to deduct this amount.

Latest threatPlans are being considered to

sell the land at the rear, used as theLibrary car park, for a proposedintensive housing development.The loss of this irreplaceable carpark would be a serious blow formany library users, particularlythe disabled.

Page 25

CPCA Membership FormRatesAnnual Subscription £8 £ ......Concessions £5 £ ......Optional contribution towards postage etc. £ ......

Total £ ......*cash/cheque/standing order

One subscription covers one household/family/business or voluntary group

Membership details I/we* wish to join/renew membership* of the CPCA.

I/we* enclose my/our subscription/contribution of £…… for year beginning 1st March 20…

(*Delete as appropriate) Please make cheques payable to CPCA or complete the standing order form overleaf

Name (plus names of additional members): …………….…………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………Number of adults: …..... Number of children: ……....…

Name of business/group if applicable: ....……………………………………………………………………….…

Address: ...………………………………………………………………………………..………………..……......…

……………………………………………………………………………..………… Postcode: …….…..…….....…

Phone/fax: .……………………………………………………………………………………..…..…………....…...

Email: ………………………………………………….……………………………… Date: ………………......…

(Your email address enables us to keep you informed of local issues more quickly – please write clearly.)

> > > > > > > > > c o n t i n u e d > > > > > > > > >

2008-9Subscriptions

Subscriptions for 2008-09 weredue on 1st March 2008. Manythanks to all those who remembered.If you pay by standing order youneed take no further action,otherwise please send a chequemade payable to the ‘CPCA’ to:

Membership Secretaryc/o 10 Jasper Road, SE19 1SJ.

Prompt payment would be mostappreciated to avoid the need forreminders.

We are pleased to say thatsubscription rates remain the sameas last year: £8 (£5 concessions)per household, but any donationsare always very welcome.

Please, please, do let us know ifyou change your email address.

C P C A A G MThursday 15th May 20087.30 pm promptly please

at the Goodliffe Hall, Christ ChurchHighland Road, off Gipsy Hill, London SE19

All members are warmly invited to come and meetthe committee, hear reports and ask questions.

Business will include discussion on the LDAMasterplan application for Crystal Palace Park.

And this year, for something completely different byway of entertainment, we welcome Drew Colby, aunique puppeteer who will present us with a sparklingnew show prepared especially for the CPCA.

As always, substantial home-made refreshments will be provided.

Page 26

Why not get involved? Please tick any activity you would like to take part in, or skills you can offer.

(a) Helping to distribute newsletters [ ] (j) Fundraising [ ](b) Writing an article for the newsletter [ ] (k) Becoming a committee member [ ](c) Giving a talk to members [ ] (l) Law [ ](d) Organising an event for members [ ] (m) IT skills (hardware/software) [ ](e) Membership recruitment [ ] (n) Journalism [ ](f) Media experience [ ] (o) Desktop publishing/graphics/design [ ](g) Publicity and public relations [ ] (p) Town planning [ ](h) Administrative/secretarial support [ ] (q) Web design/maintenance [ ](i) Researching information [ ] (r) Accountancy [ ]

Other: …………………..………………………………………………………………………………………………..

To ensure that your membership is maintained you may prefer to pay by standing order through your bank. If so, please complete this form and return it to the CPCA at the address below.

Standing Order form

Name/address of bank/building society: Account Number: ……..………………….

……………………………………...........… Sort Code: ………………………………...

……………………………………..........… Signed: …………………………………...….

……………………………………….......... Date: ………………………………….....

Please pay the CPCA (Barclays Bank, Upper Norwood & Crystal Palace Branch, Sort Code 20-94-67, Account No. 50309486) the sum of £ …..… on 1st March each year until further notice.

Membership details are kept on a database and not made available to any other party. If you prefer not be included, please tick the box [ ]

Please return this form with your subscription to CPCA:10 Jasper Road London SE19 1SJ Tel/Fax: 020 8670 4395 email: [email protected] website: www.cpca.org.uk

Member of the London Forum of Amenity & Civic Societies & The Open Spaces Society Registered Charity No. 261790

Did you know?...that the tip you leave to your

waiter on your credit card bill ismore likely to go to pay his wagesthan be given as the bonus youintended. If you really want toshow gratitude, separate the tipfrom the bill and give it in cash tohim personally.

Warehouse Theatre4Kidz£4.50 children, £6 grown-ups.

The Warehouse also arrange children’s parties after the show.

For details please contact 020 8680 4794 or visit:www.warehousetheatre.co.uk

The Warehouse Theatre, Dingwall Road, Croydon CR0 2NFEast Croydon BR

If you care about the area,

join the CPCA. Together,

your voice counts.

Page 27

Drawing on local issues

Good news is in short supply,but even bad news can have itsfunny side. Mike Conrad hasbeen producing cartoons for theCPCA newsletter forever, but heseldom signs his work and soremains anonymous to manyreaders. Well now you knowwho to blame.

Mike also sells greetings cardsof his paintings in the UpperNorwood Joint Library with aportion of the proceeds going tolibrary funds.

Audrey’s PortraitCPCA President, Audrey

Hammond is proud to announcethat the Royal Society of PortraitPainters has accepted her pencildrawing of the late LucienPrechner for its AnnualExhibition.

This wonderful gentlemanworked for the BBC World Service,was a stalwart of the Herne HillSociety, Vice-President of theLondon Globetrotters Club andduring his long retirement hevisited exhibitions, concerts andwas a frequent guest at Audrey’sOpen Studio days.

The exhibition runs from 24 April to 15 May

at the Mall Galleries, 17 Carlton House Terrace, SW1

(10-5pm everyday except the lastwhen it finishes at 1pm).

Entry is £2.50 (£1.50 concessions)

Whisky with your work-out!So you want to lose weight? Forget joining a gym – expensive and

boring. Just put on your old clothes and come down to the CountryWalk at Norwood Park and join the Wildlife Team for one of ourSaturday work-outs.

Choose any job you like – we are behind with just about everythingin our project to turn three acres of the park into a ‘perfect piece ofcountryside’, and we need your help.

The Wildlife Team works each Saturday from 1 - 4 pm with a breakfor tea & biscuits (or whisky if it’s cold!). Besides exercise and fresh air,you can count on a few perks – unlimited bags of half-rotted woodchips to mulch your own garden, free wildflower seeds and the use ofthe Team’s 50-odd tools (everything from extending tree loppers tomattocks).

We hire out the tools for £1 per tool per week, but free to schools andvoluntary organisations. We also sell wildflower seeds – a £2.50 packetwill give you 21 of the best wildflowers and another £2 packet will addnine big plants such as teasel and wild hop.

John Cotter, Norwood Park Wildlife Team 8244 8724

Just for fun- back and front of my Great

North Run Walk 2007, and hugethanks to all my supporters fortheir donations to the CPCA andthe Samaritans, which raisedalmost £2,000.

I was really pleased with mytime of 3 hours and 02 minutes -not bad for a 13-mile stroll. I’drecommend the experience toeveryone – you couldn’t wipe thegrin off my face for a week. Thank you all so much. Suzanne Elkin

Advertisement

Page 28

PLANNINGNOTESCawnpore StreetPlanning Applicationapproved

On 16 October 2007, LambethCouncil Planning ApplicationCommittee approved the secondapplication by Greenacre Homesand Alan Camp Architects for a54-unit housing developmentbetween Cawnpore Street andWoodland Road, London SE19.

The decision was received withdisbelief in the packed councilchamber, which echoed with criesof “shame on you” and othervehement protests from those whoconsidered they had beenbetrayed by this capitulation tocommercial interests.

The Committee of five wasdivided on this secondapplication, which was decided bythe exercise of the Chairman CllrToren Smith’s casting vote, andbased on his stated view of theneed for social housing, not onplanning considerations.

Councillors Brian Palmer andJohn Whelan found that the newproposal differed very little fromthe first which, in February, wasrefused by the same Committeeon grounds of mass, scale, bulkand design, and in their view, wasworse than the first.

Amplifying this, Cllr Palmerdescribed the new design as“something like the Gipsy Hill branchof the local Stasi”, whilst Cllr DaveMalley, who admitted that thedifference between the first andsecond schemes was marginal atbest, later approved thedevelopment on the spuriousjustification of not exposing theCouncil to risk of costs fromfurther appeal by the developers.

The Deputy Chair, Cllr DianaMorris, who had opposed the firstapplication, also stated that shewas not convinced of the merits of

“One day, my son,all this will bemulti-occupancyunits.”

the further application and, mostsurprisingly, abstained from votingon this crucial issue.

Cogent arguments presented bythe CPCA, local ward councillorsand Lambeth Mayor, AndrewGibson, were not accepted by theCommittee, which also gave littleregard to policies relevant to theapplication, detailed in a CPCAdocument*, circulated toCommittee members and keyofficers prior to the meeting.

This decision is one of the mostblatant examples the CPCA hasencountered of a political agendabulldozed through by thoseunwilling to apply the policiesthey helped to formulate relatingto development in conservationand adjacent areas.

Most present felt that thedecision to approve theapplication was contrary to theinterests of local residents andcouncil-tax payers alike, whilstthe CPCA considers theLambeth Planning Committeedecision to be an abdication ofresponsibility.

Urban Task Force findingsignored

In 1998 the Governmentasked the world-renownedarchitect, Lord Rogers, to leadthe Urban Task Force, acommission of architects,planners and engineers, toproduce a plan for inner-cityrenewal that focused on design-led buildings and reform of theplanning system to allow forgreater involvement ofresidents.

But how much has this beenheeded? When speaking ofurban regeneration Lord Rogersnow states: “These aredevelopments which have no regardfor a community’s sense of place,belonging or identity. I fear we arebuilding the slums of tomorrow butit shouldn’t be.”

Just hot airIt is particularly important to

recognise the Government’sown 2016 target date for zero-carbon emissions for newhomes. But why wait till then?The homes built now, Cawnporebeing a prime example, giveonly a nod to ecologicalconstruction, so polluting forthe lifetime of the building andlocking in spiralling energycosts, often disadvantagingthose who can least afford it.

We have the technologyNOW to build zero-carbonemission homes, so why, underGovernment housing targets,build three million homes tobecome the eco-slums oftomorrow? Why? - because it ismore profitable for thedeveloper.

* The document can be viewedon the CPCA website.

Whilst the CPCA has neverquestioned that the site offerswelcome opportunity for muchneeded local affordable housing, itbelieves that its unique locationwithin, and adjacent to, theconservation area, warrantsspecial recognition in anydevelopment.

Planning laws and policiesstipulate that conservation areasmust be ‘preserved or enhanced’by new developments, yet thisnew scheme fails completely inthis respect; and it is perverse tojustify a proposal in a conser-vation area by comparison to1960s’ high-rise tower blocks,which councillors accept are not inkeeping with the two- and three-storey Victorian villas and terracesof the conservation area.

.

Page 29

Despite concerted and valiantefforts of the local community, therecent granting of planningpermission for the proposeddevelopment in Cawnpore Streethas now become an acknowledgedfact. But it would be useful to setthe application in the widercontext of national strategicplanning policy to see just howdegrees of control are exercisedfrom above and which allowedthe Cawnpore Street developmentto come about, notwithstandingthe Government’s Strong &Prosperous Communities agendawhich is aimed at encouragingcommunity participation andaccountability.

Under pressure from CentralGovernment, Councils areallowing swathes of mediocre andawful housing developments tobe built everywhere andanywhere. Of course, the poorquality of applications does notgo unrecognised but, withgrowing frustration, it is notalways possible for planningdepartments to resist them,resulting in a lack of confidence toturn down applications forreasons other than on planninggrounds, and mindful thatdecisions could be overturned byCentral Government (via theSecretary of State) and the Mayorof London.

The Royal Town PlanningInstitute has stated that quality isdeteriorating because of stringenttargets, warning that lessons ofthe past have not been learnedand the sink estates of the futureare being built today.Government Ministers want tosee more homes built becausedemographic and immigrationprojections suggest a rise inhouseholds. They are moreinterested in the constructionindustry, as an employer andearner of GDP, than the heritageindustry. But the causes are morewide-ranging – a ‘life-style’

DEVELOPING THE BAD

attitude arising out of a buoyant,but decidedly precarious,economy with people expectingand demanding more and more.

Financial incentives, such as theHousing and Planning DeliveryGrant rewarding those councilsthat approve more schemes andpenalise those that do not,compound the situation whichmerely plays the numbers gameand pays little heed to quality andthe big mistakes that are thrownup. The greedy 1980s ‘let-rip’philosophy completely ignoredenvironmental and socialimplications of development. The1990s brought in a more nervouslyenlightened perspective to theconsequences, but with currentgovernment targets of 3 millionmore homes by 2010 thependulum has swung backtowards the developers. However,such targets are difficult, if notimpossible, to meet – starts in 2007were 170,000, up from 141,700 in2000, but still below the new targetof 240,000 a year. With ever-fastertrack, design and construction,standards are falling, not helpedby the fact that big companieshave so many more resourcesthan cash-strapped and time-pressured local authorities, to fightappeals.

Developers are guilty of seekingto cram in as many of theirstandard range of residential unitson a site, regardless of context.

The idea of low-carbon jargonand bolted-on eco-bling to blandand unimaginative designs is notwell received by CABE Space, thearchitectural watchdog, which hasbeen scathing of the industry.CABE Space are aware of the bluffand unfulfilled realisation inpractice - mass residential blockswhich do not live up to the eco-tagi.e. the design fails to meetexpectations and the build qualityregresses the expectations furtherstill. Even the recent andacclaimed ‘BedZed’ in Merton is

found to be not as efficient as thearchitects led us all to believe, andit now falls far short of the currentstandards for energy efficiency.CABE Space have not beenbackwards in coming forwardwith criticism.

The really grating thing is thatthis life-style living is not whatpeople really want, but is what isfoisted upon them by thedevelopers who themselvesdecide what is best. Removingthe freedom of choice makes lifeeasier and more lucrative for thedevelopers.

The Cawnpore Streetdevelopment is one such case(though not the only one) inCrystal Palace. It is a monstrousscheme that is large, ugly andinappropriate, and sweeps awayhistory, character and identityfrom a conservation area,exemplifying the disappointmentof many such schemes being builtall over the place. The developerand architects hype it up and saythat the design has been the resultof widespread consultation, butthat’s the type of old-style consul-tation that is dogmatic anddictatorial, rather than the newwhich is engaging, participatory,inclusive, sympathetic andempathetic. The scheme is another‘dream’, that reality will turn intoa nightmare for the localcommunity. It is difficult to knowwho is to blame – the developer,the architects, the feeble plannersor some spineless local politicians.It may not be ill-intentioned, but itis a disaster all the same.

It seems that perfectionists haveto accept we have a Governmentthat takes a different view fromwhat it used to. More worrying isthat all of the political partiesappear to have the same agenda –‘regeneration’ [and blow theconsequences] is used as a politicaltool to gratify the voters.

Don Bianco

Page 30

‘Brownfield’ is the term givento previously developed land –something like a redundantfactory site or a disused gasworks,you might think. Yes, but intothis category will also fall a houseand its garden, because the house,along with its curtilage – itsgarden – is, in planning terms,defined as brownfield. So, if notwithin a conservation area orotherwise protected, it is littlemore than a potential buildingsite. The government, in its questto concrete over much of London,its suburbs and beyond, watcheswith what seems to be feigneddisinterest as the undeclaredagents of this process – propertydevelopers – move in to take outacres of the green habitats anddomestic vernacular architecturemissed by the Luftwaffe, oroverlooked by 1960s town‘planners’. The process is calledgarden grabbing. The EveningStandard, 22 February 2008,reports the Wildlife Trust assaying that since the Eighties anarea of green space 22 times thesize of Hyde Park has vanishedfrom London.

So how does this come about?Well, a developer may seek outand sign up a group ofhomeowners to an optionagreement; that is to say, a verygenerous cheque will be doled outfor their property if planningpermission is granted – or theirhouse and garden will stay if itisn’t. This is all done covertly sothe neighbours will suspectnothing – until it’s too late. Thedeveloper may even attend pre-application discussions with thelocal planning authority (apractice encouraged bygovernment) – and still theneighbours won’t know. Then,confident that permission will begranted, either by the localauthority or on appeal by agovernment inspector, thedeveloper, with the agreement ofthe homeowners, may send in the

chainsaw gangs to take out all thetrees that will be in the way of thedevelopment proposal; down willgo the beech, the birch, the oak,the ash, the sycamore, the yew,and plenty more besides. Whiningchainsaws, bonfires, thedestruction of wildlife habitatsand corruption of the landscape,and still the neighbours are in thedark. The local planning authoritymay respond to telephone callsfrom concerned residents by

H OW D O E S YO U R G A R D E N G O ?

involvement in the discharge ofrelevant planning conditions andon-site monitoring. This willensure that trees are consideredprior to and within the design,construction and futuremanagement of proposeddevelopment sites. The stages tobe followed will include a treesurvey, a plan showing rootprotection areas, a methodstatement and an arboriculturalimplications statement. One aimof the exercise is to ensure thattrees are successfully andappropriately retained when/if adevelopment takes place; existingtrees have environmental andsocial benefits, and can provide animmediate sense of maturity onany area proposed fordevelopment.

Some local authorities, likeSouthampton City Council, willexpect developers to comply withBS5837: 2005, saying that failureto do so may result in a planningapplication not being registered orotherwise delayed. And accordingto the Environmental DimensionPartnership (www.edp-uk.co.uk)there have been cases ofapplications being refused to beregistered because the arbori-cultural information did notcomply with BS5837. What isyour local planning authority’spolicy on trees in relation toconstruction? The saddestsituation is where trees areremoved and the developer failsto gain planning permission; theenvironment impoverished for noreason at all.

Meanwhile, back to thosehomeowners who have enteredinto option agreements with adeveloper; the Local Authoritymay be unaware of ordisinterested in any suchagreements and, under theconsultation arrangements, willregard the signed-up homeowners(along with everyone else livingin close proximity) as ‘neighbourconsultees’. And with the trees

saying that the trees are on privateland and not statutorily protected,or that the gardens are not in aconservation area and, in any case,no planning application has beenreceived, so nothing can be done.According to a report in theCroydon Advertiser, 11 January2008, 15 trees were hacked downon land behind Christian Fieldsand Gibson’s Hill in Norbury on 5January; it is believed thatdevelopers want to build a blockof flats on the site. Theintervention of local councillorsand the police was to no avail.

A developer may arrange for atree survey to be undertaken onlyafter trees are gone, and have itsresults submitted along with theplanning application. In fact, aBritish Standard – BS5837: 2005‘Trees in Relation to Construction –Recommendations’ advises a ‘cradleto grave’ approach, i.e. from theappointment of a qualified arbori-culturist before the design of anyproposal, through to his/her

Page 31

gone and the prospect of cashbeckoning, these owners will nowmake no adverse comments, sincea grant of planning permissionwill be seen as being in their bestinterests.

In due course, the council’sdevelopment control committeewill consider an application in thecontext of government planningguidance and its owndevelopment plan, and will takeinto account expressions ofsupport or opposition fromneighbour consultees and others.If the planning officers advise thecommittee to refuse theapplication, the developer mayappeal and be granted permissionby a government-appointedinspector. Some would argue thatin this way councillors, along withthose who elected them, are beingdisenfranchised; in Surrey,Tandridge District Council haswritten to the Secretary of State forCommunities and LocalGovernment to protest at theextent decisions of itsDevelopment Control Committeeare being overturned by unelectedinspectors. If permission is finallygranted, then with homesdecanted and ready fordemolition, and gardens gone, thesurrounding neighbours may lookwith despair to the prospect ofliving for months, perhaps yearsalongside a building site.

By entering into secret dealswith those who would otherwiseoppose their plans, it is propertydevelopers who, with the tacitsupport of government, can toooften control the system – andcome out at the end of it withprofit enough to move onto thenext block of homes and gardens.It seems clear that the incrementaldestruction of our settledcommunities, domesticarchitecture and establishedgarden landscapes in this way iswhat masquerades as one aspectof development control in Britaintoday.

Ken Lewington

Two recently published WhitePapers have importantimplications for the futuremanagement of the historicenvironment: Planning for aSustainable Future and Strong andProsperous Communities.

The Department of Culture,Media and Sport (‘DCMS’)states: When a White Paper isissued, it is often accompanied by astatement in the House from theSecretary of State of the departmentsponsoring the proposals. A WhitePaper is sometimes producedfollowing the consultation processwhich is undertaken when thegovernment issues a Green Paper.

So, although there are threeconsultation questions at theend of the White Paper, thesefocus on matters of possibledetail in the new system.

In the Summer 2007 CPCANewsletter, we reported on therecently published Planning for aSustainable Future. Our concernsare that this White Paper has apresumption in favour ofdevelopment, and that the rightfor locals to use public inquiriesto air their views about built andnatural environments may berestricted.

Notwithstanding the othercrucial White Paper, Strong andProsperous Communities, localresidents must retain a say in the

preparation of local andregional plans.

The Government nowrequires local authorities toproduce a Statement ofCommunity Involvement(‘SCI’), setting out theprocedure for involving localcommunities in developmentplans and planningapplications. Communitiesneed to be assured that theirviews will be taken seriously.

There are also plans to relaxcontrol on ‘minor’ domesticdevelopments, including thosein conservation areas, which are‘acceptable to neighbours’,although it is not clear how theneighbours will be able to findout what is proposed.

While the emphasis on thehistoric environment is moreencouraging, it still requiresmuch clarification andrefinement before the practicalapplication is deemedappropriate. Particularlyheartening is the rapid progressof DCMS towards drafting anew Heritage Bill to put theframework of the new system inplace. Parliamentary scrutinyof the draft bill is imminent, sothings are moving fast.

For a major campaign againstthese proposals, seewww.planningdisaster.co.uk

The Planning Bill

Empty premises in Westow Hill, Upper Norwood, a year on. The surprise would be if our ‘Banksy’ was wrong!

Cuckoo landI believe that the concept of

drawing up an elaborate, costlyplan for a park, without firstsecuring the funding, is misguided.

Improvements to Dulwich Parkwere achieved at a cost of £5 million,to the satisfaction of park-users.The 200-acre Battersea Park wasrestored for £11 million.

The first, but not the last, figurewe have for Crystal Palace Park is£67.5 million, decades in thecompletion, and no idea where themoney is coming from to pay forit all, apart of course from the firstround (?) of down-sizing the Park.

D Nixon

Page 32

LETTERSA Good Night Out

For anyone who has a fancy totry Thai food, might I suggest a tripto Nim’s Kitchen in Westow Hill?

A group of CPCA members -14of us - went there on 4 Decemberand had a very enjoyable meal inpleasant surroundings with goodservice. The food was full offlavour, fresh and interesting, witha wide selection of dishes atreasonable prices. The companywas friendly, conversation waslively and we came away wellsatisfied and also (possibly helpedby a little wine) in a happy mood.

Nim’s Kitchen served us well,and I thoroughly recommend it.

Marjorie Callister

Cawnpore StreetAnd so it’s to be goodbye to the

Old Dairy. It’s been part of UpperNorwood since 1888 until 2006,when the current occupants wereevicted. The Old Dairy is abuilding of modest elegance andhuman scale with a positivehistorical connection to the areaand linkage with French’s Field atthe bottom of Gipsy Hill.

Now it is to be lost forever. Inits place we are to be graced withthe “Gipsy Hill stasi”, designed byAlan Camp Architects, a piece oftosh defying the arrogance of thearchitects who argued that theyhad won awards for their workand that this design was in thesame vein. The only award withwhich I would honour thisdevelopment is the CarbuncleCup. But surely the fact that thiscontemporary piece of design willnot be in the running for aprestigious award must conflict withthe requirement for enhancementof a conservation area.

I was present at the meetingwhere Lambeth’s PlanningCommittee considered the secondapplication, and was appalled bythe blatant politicking of theplanning officers and some of thecouncillors sitting on thecommittee, and then finally thatperverse decision ultimately madeto grant permission.

My regret is that flying in theface of its own policies - thosegood conservation policies - andcommon sense, the residents ofUpper Norwood are now faced

This letter was in response to anarticle in the Royal HorticulturalSociety magazine.

Although THE GARDEN,November 2006 issue, identifiedcontroversial aspects of LDAproposals for the restoration ofCrystal Palace Park, the December2007 issue, “Crystal Palace Park tosparkle again”, takes no furtheraccount of this with “…returnCrystal Palace Park in London to oneof the most impressive green spaces inEurope…”

The construction of 200 privateluxury housing units andassociated roads to fund theLDA’s ambitious schemes, will nomore enable the “return” ofCrystal Palace Park to impressivegreen space than attempts toprove ‘less is more’ in LDA claimsthat development on the Park willincrease accessible parkland.

Disregard by the LDA of its ownstakeholder consultation and ofthe 7,000 signature petition to theLondon Mayor, which confirmedoverwhelming opposition to saleof parkland for housing, is highlyirregular and damaging to the

Crystal Palace public Park -public ‘consultation’

I remain deeply disappointedwith this whole, tiresome"process", which has now broughtus full circle to where we shouldhave started - looking for fundingfor possible Park improvements.Despite repeated requests from meand others, the LDA neveradmitted the need for research intofunding, beyond theirpreferred/only option of housing.

To add insult to injury, they arenow not only asking us to sacrificeyet more time to attend yet moremeetings (which should havehappened years ago), but alsopossibly asking us, the long-suffering stakeholders, to carry outunpaid research on their behalf, tounearth the missing millionswhich will be needed to financesuch a far-fetched, over-ambitious,unnecessary Master-plan, servedup by Latz + Partner, at hugeexpense to the taxpayer.

As I have repeatedly pointedout, the projected "inheritance"(£12 million) from luxury housebuilding, which few people want,has already been spent - with littleto show for it, except a vastly

expensive dialogue/LDAPublicity/"Process", along with afew minor improvements to thePark itself. How cruelly have webeen deceived, all along the way!

Richard Francis

credibility of any future LDApublic consultation.

In addition, the controversialmasterplan shows two huge glass-houses, not one as you suggest;the “sunken gardens” neverexisted in the Paxton landscape,the Masterplan does not refer toany restoration of Paxton’sfountains and the “tree palace”has now been revealed by the LDAas an area for over-spill car parking.

John PayneChair, CPCA

Page 33

with a building of such poorvisual quality and hugeoverwhelming scale as to be outof all proportion to the villagecharacter of the area. In a prosaicpiece of sidelining, even thesection 106 benefits will servethose in West Norwood more thanthe residents of Upper Norwood.

It seems that planning isbecoming a downward spiral ofworse and worse, with ultimatelyless and less rewardingdevelopments giving us more andmore worthless buildings.

Designers have lost the plot,allowing the pandering to theiregos to subvert the principles ofgood taste and good design thatpromote harmony within acommunity. It has to stop.

Don Bianco

Dream or nightmare?Imagine a new Crystal Palace

Park inside of which are retailoutlets and a quarter-milepedestrian flyover, where thepublic is banned from playing onthe grass unless they’ve rented it,and five-storey blocks of luxuryflats occupy parkland where oncestood mature, protected trees.Imagine trams running throughthe Park and a bus terminusdouble its current size. Imagine thefootprint of the old palace full ofimmature plane trees that havebeen pruned to the shape oflollipops, to cram in hundreds ofcars when the Park is thrown opento money-making events for up to20,000 people.

This nightmare will be reality, ifthe LDA’s recently submittedMasterplan for Crystal Palace Parkgoes unchallenged. So let’s digunder the greenwash to unearththe details the LDA wants to bury.

First, according to the LDAMasterplan Exhibition brochure,“Housing is … vital to ensure thedeliverability of the Masterplan … Theresidential development would raise£13.1 million and will be ring-fencedspecifically for the regeneration of thepark.”

‘Ring-fenced’ is an unfortunatephrase. According to the LDA’sown cost plan document, thehighest single cost by far is£13,045,000 (excluding VAT, as areall the costs quoted) for ‘buildingstructures’ on Rockhills (thecamping ground), and thebeautiful English landscapegarden. Of this, £3,214,000 (ex.VAT) is for a tree-top walkwaystretching 405 metres. That’s overa quarter of a mile.

This is assuming that there areany mature trees left to walk over.According to the Management andMaintenance Plan (produced forthe LDA by Land ManagementServices Ltd), the removal of largemature trees, including horsechestnuts, is scheduled as 720man-days over six years. Thejustification is that, “A large numberof horse chestnuts are suffering frombleeding canker” but the morecynical must be wondering howmany healthy trees are being clearedto make way for blocks of flats.

Furthermore, the “removal ofsmaller (semi mature and young)trees” is scheduled as 108 man-days over six years. Are these treescankerous? And this culling, “…does not include tree removals whichmay be required as part of theimplementation of the Masterplan.”So why are they being removed?

For both the retained and newlyplanted trees, there will be,“Crown lifting and removal ofepicormic growth to maintainclearances to provide views into thePark.” A little fact that the LDAhas failed to mention in its officialdocuments (first mentioning itverbally to a small gathering of theNorwood Society last October) isthat they intend to use the Parkhilltop as overspill parking forover 600 cars on event days. So isthe lollipop cropping actually tomake space for cars?

According to the samemaintenance-plan document, thereare only around 2000 trees in thepark in the first place. By year sixwill there be any original trees leftto chainsaw? Reading that 104man-days have been allocated for,

“Miscellaneous other (cable bracing,stump grinding)”, one can’t helpbut picture a park full of tree stumps.

Perhaps they’ll turn thosestumps into tables and seats for allthe extra cafés and shops.According to the Masterplan, thePark will have: a new museumbuilding with a café/bistro (40-50covers) and shop; kiosks on thehilltop; a dinosaur interpretationcentre with a café and shop; Northand South Greenhouse café andshop; and ‘coffee points’ in the‘woodland interpretation centre’ –namely the concert bowl with thepedestrian flyover.

Why does the LDA want to turnthe Park into a turfed shoppingmall? Part of the LDA’s argumentfor the Park ‘developments’ is tobenefit the existing shops inNorwood Triangle. But how canthey benefit from extracompetition inside a one-stopdestination Park?

Another ominous sign is themultiple revenue streams theLDA’s documents identify,including the private hire of theproposed cricket ground andpavilion. According to theMasterplan outline document,“This would restrict the usage of theopen space to just cricket playersduring the weekends given this iswhen the matches tend to be played.In addition it is likely that during theweek there may be restrictions onusage of the cricket outfield for certainactivities, for example playing footballwould have to be prohibited.” Sorather than open grassland whereyoungsters can kick around afootball, we will have an elitistcricket ground that has to berented. And the cost of this cricketground? £3,280,000 (ex. VAT).

The Pascuense language ofEaster Island has a verb ‘tingo’that means, ‘To take all the objectsone desires from the house of afriend, one at a time, by borrowingthem.’ It seems that the LDA,under the guise of ‘improving’ ourPark, is actually trying to tingo itfor private profit.

Julian Maynard-Smith

Friends of the Horniman ART EXHIBITIONin the beautiful Victorian Conservatory of the Horniman Museum

Saturday 19 & Sunday 20 July - 10.30 am to 5 pm

ADMISSION FREE

Audrey Hammond and Mike Conrad will be exhibiting their watercolours & drawings.

Page 34

Sunday 18 May

Green Chain WalkOur next walk will follow the ‘GreenChain’ from Crystal Palace Park to

Bromley, starting at the TriangleGate at Crystal Palace Park.

The route of 4 to 5 miles will passthrough a number of parks, treelined roads, buildings of interest

and open spaces includingAlexandra Recreation Ground and

Beckenham Place Park. We plan to have lunch in Bromley

before taking the bus home. Meet at 10 am at the Triangle Gate

entrance to Crystal Palace Park,corner of the Parade and Anerley Hill.

Cost £5 for CPCA funds.

CPCACPCA SS UMMERUMMER ANDAND AA UTUMNUTUMN EE VENTSVENTS

Friday 13 June

Summer Quiz NightJoin us at this fun and friendlyevent, with our very own quizmistress Katriona, putting your

brain cells to the test. Book your table for 8

or come on your own and meetnew faces or old friends.

Tickets are £7.50 for members, £8.50non-members,

to include a fish & chip supper

Bring your own drink andglasses but both will be available

should you forget.Doors open 7.15 for a 7.30pm

start at the Goodliffe HallHighland Road, off Gipsy Hill SE19

Raffle & Prizes & FunPlease book early to allow time to

organise the food.

Phone/fax CPCA 8670 4395 oremail: [email protected]

Sunday 1 June

Lunch at Il PonteRestaurant

66 Westow Hill, Crystal Palace 020 8670 7959

Join us for lunch at thispopular Italian restaurant.

Choose from either their 3-courseSunday Special at £12.95, which

includes traditional Sunday roast,or from their regular menu, withstarters priced from £3.50, a widerange of main courses including

those suitable for vegetarians from£5.45 for a Margarita Pizza and a

selection of desserts priced at £3.95.We will be booking the table for 1pm.

Please let us know if you wish to come by Wednesday 28 May.

Sunday 20 July

Walk at Richmond ParkThis vast green space, the largest inLondon, covering 2,500 acres, enjoysvaried unspoilt landscapes of hills,woodlands, gardens andgrasslands. The park is famous forthe 300 red deer and 350 fallow deerthat roam and graze freely. Bring a picnic, so we can eat lunchin these picturesque surroundings.We are planning a route of 3-4miles. Meet at Crystal Palace Stationat 9.15am to travel by train or call usfor details of a meeting point near tothe park if you are making yourown way there.

Cost £5 for CPCA funds.

Sunday 28 September

Circular walk aroundHayes and Keston

Starting at the ‘George’ in HayesVillage, we will follow a route that

passes fields, ancient common land,Keston Ponds and Wilberforce’sOak, where William Wilberforcediscussed the abolition of slavery

with Pitt the Younger. This historiclocation, marked with a plaque, also

enjoys views over the vale ofKeston. We plan a pub lunch en

route.Meet at 10.30am outside the

George public house, Hayes Street,Hayes Village, Kent.

Contact us regarding travelarrangements.

Cost £5 for CPCA funds. Tuesday 14 October

Meal at Los Torreros35 Westow Street, SE19

020 8771 0087

Join us for a taste of Spain, at ourlocal tapas restaurant, with its widerange of dishes to tempt all palates. They also have a good drinks menu

including delicious cocktails. We shall book the table for 7.30pm.

Our winter Quiz Night will be heldon Friday 14th November - sametime, same place, same good fun.

Save the date now.

Tuesday 2 December

The Ghurkha Cottage Indian and Nepalese Restaurant

17 Westow Street, SE19020 8771 7372

Enjoy the authentic flavours of theEast at this popular local restaurant.

Table will be booked for 7.30pm.

CCCCrrrrooooyyyyddddoooonnnn SSSS tttt aaaaggggeeeerrrrsssspresent

Old Tyme Music Hall at The Stanley Halls,South Norwood Hill

1st - 6th Septemberand

ANYTHING GOESMusic and Lyrics by Cole Porter

at the Ashcroft Theatre, Croydon25th - 29th November

CCCCaaaa llll llll CCCCrrrrooooyyyyddddoooonnnn SSSS tttt aaaaggggeeeerrrr ssssbox office on

8776 1064 for Music Hall or8651 0527 for Anything Goes

St. Mark’s Players present

Seasons of LoveSeasons of LoveStanley Halls South

NorwoodFri.13th & Sat.14th June

at 7.30 pm &

Sat.14th June at 2.30 pm All tickets: £6.50

to include refreshments

Box Office:

8393 3640/8240 9378www.smplayers.co.uk

Open House free annual weekend event

20 - 21 September 2008The Capital’s biggest free access

architectural festival, ‘OpenHouse London’, allows the publicto visit private residences fromslick contemporary homes to pre-fab and social housing, Arts andCrafts gems, 20th CenturyModernist classics, Livery-Halls,government buildings,Ambassadors’ residences, privateclubs, contemporary workspaces,historical houses, City banks,medical centres, schools, RIBAaward-winners, sustainableexemplars and more...

The Buildings Guide for 2008will be available from mid Augustthrough www.openhouse.org.uksending an A4 SAE (65p stamp) +cheque for £3 (payable to LondonOpen House) to 4th Floor, 297Euston Road, London NWI 3AQ

Information Line: 09001 600 061or visit www.openhouse.org.uk

Open House is an architectureeducation charity committed toraising the standard of London’sbuilt environment. We openpeople’s eyes and minds to gooddesign through dialogue, learning,and direct experience of excellentspaces and places.

Sounds of the Suburbs9th free music festival

Saturday 26 & Sunday 27 July at the Crystal Palace concert platform

featuring new and emerging music talentfrom south of the Thames with food, craft& market stalls, local information points

and a fully stocked and licensed bar.

For more information contact CarolAnn Walters on 8289 0460, email

[email protected] orwww.thebowl.org.uk

Page 35

Summer FairKingswood House, Lyall Avenue, SE21,

will be holding a summer fair on Sunday 27 July,

with many stalls and live music.

Saturday 16 August

Crystal Palace Artists at Spa Hill allotments

OPEN DAYCome along and enjoy the

artwork and visit the stalls sellingorganic produce. Take a tour ofthe 22-acre site; see the eco hutand the large pond, dug only lastyear but already home to a familyof ducks. All plots are currentlylet, but why not check out thebenefits of becoming a gardenmember. More information anddetails of the Organic TrainingDays on www.spahill.org.uk

Some of the gardeners at theallotments enjoyed a briefweekend of fame when theirphotographs were featured in thegarden supplements of TheGuardian and The Observernewspapers (5 & 6 April).

Entitled “Growing your own”,the supplements addressed theincreasing interest in organic foodproduction. In the introductionto the supplement the authorspoint out that “for the first timevegetable seeds are outselling flowerseeds”.

L a m b e t hHorticultural Society

Established in 1951, the Society’saim is to promote all aspects ofhorticulture and gardening withinthe London Borough of Lambeth.

Visit our Trading Hut –gardening goods at reduced prices

Cedar Tree Grove, West NorwoodSaturday 12-4.30, Sunday 10-12.30

Flower and produce shows -three times a yearMonthly free talks –

Nettlefold Hall, West Norwood 3rd Wednesday of the month, 8pm

All this for only £5 a year!

Visit our website : www.lambethhorticulturalsociety.org.ukEmail our membership secretary :[email protected]

Victorian Weekend

It is with regret that the CrystalPalace Foundation have said they

are unable to host the verypopular Victorian weekend.

The Park Rangers await newsfrom another organiser, who

might come to the rescue. Please phone them on 8778 7148

for the latest information.Should it take place, the CPCA

will be there with our stall.

Denniss MatthewsSolicitors

Established 1791

Domestic & Commercial Conveyancing(written estimates given)

Wills & EstatesCompany Law

Accident ClaimsMatrimonial and All forms of Litigation

145 Anerley Rd London SE20 8EG Tel: (020) 8778 7301/7631 Fax (020) 8778 6782 [email protected]

CPCA c/o 10 Jasper Road, Upper Norwood, London SE19 1SJ Tel / Fax: 020 8670 4395 [email protected] www.cpca.org.uk

Member of the London Forum of Amenity & Civic Societies and the Open Spaces Society Registered Charity No. 261790

Bandlish Dental Surgery5 Gipsy Hill, Upper Norwood, London SE19 1QG

WELCOME TO BANDLISHDENTAL SURGERY

providing all kinds of quality dentistry Monday to Friday 9am to 6 pm

and Saturday 9 am to 1 pm.

We are a very friendly, sympatheticand prevention-orientated team.

We aim to provide the highestquality of clinical care andtreatment, and are committed toContinuing Professional Educationto constantly upgrade our techniques.

We are a modern practice locatedat the top of Gipsy Hill, ten minuteswalk from Gipsy Hill BR station andfive minutes from Crystal PalaceParade.Limited parking is available in front of the practice.

We provide variousservices subject toconsultation,including:• Cosmetic/white fillings

• Implants• Crowns & Bridges• Tooth whitening• Home visits• Same-day gold fillings

• Same-day denture repairs

• Hygiene appointments

• Prophyjet stain removal

• Panoramic x-ray imaging

• Orthodontic referrals• Dental photography• EMERGENCY SERVICE

Tel: 020 8670 2296, 020 8761 3609 Fax: 020 8488 4794email: [email protected] www.bandlish.co.uk

0% FINANCIAL PLANBandlish Dental Surgery

are now able to offer a 0%interest free financial plan toenable our patients to have

the treatment of theirchoice: cosmetic dental

treatment, implants, crowns,teeth whitening and more.

EVENING EMERGENCYDENTAL

Tuesdays,Wednesdays,Thursdays5.30 pm until 7.30 pm (NHS)

PRIVATE CALL OUT SERVICE after 7.30 pm.

In case of dental emergency,kindly call 07730 963 127

out of normal surgery hours.