There's quite a big piece about the Crystal Palace Park development in today's Evening Standard, which Mayor Boris is apparently backing, here:
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/ ... article.do
Crystal Palace Park development
I can't even begin to think what a develoment of 132 homes at the top of the park would do to traffic etc. It beggars belief that anyone even considered it. 
Bromley council supporters say it 'will save the park from becoming derelict'. I have never heard so much crap in my life. I would love to see the park improved but if it is at the expense of greedy developers building unsupportable numbers of flats I'm happy to have the park as it is.
Here's hoping local people can get together and prevent this wholesale flat building and find finance in other ways.
Bromley council supporters say it 'will save the park from becoming derelict'. I have never heard so much crap in my life. I would love to see the park improved but if it is at the expense of greedy developers building unsupportable numbers of flats I'm happy to have the park as it is.
Here's hoping local people can get together and prevent this wholesale flat building and find finance in other ways.
This apocalyptic typically Daily Mailish response to this issue is totally out of proportion to the facts.
I can imagine what 132 new homes will do to traffic and as it is in the least densely populated side of the park with the widest roads where congestion tends to be less of a problem I can imagine the impact will be relatively small. As I imagine it will be the usual London developer mix of relatively small units unlikely to be participating in the school run I imagine that the addition to the average rush hour will be a handful of vehicles.
What gets me is the general tone of these objections seem to be that Bromley etc are acting totally against the wishes of some vast majority who support THEIR point of view. The proposal is for a vastly improved park compared to the half-tarmaced mess it is now yet some people would rather stall this further than allow us all to benefit (perhaps in our lifetime would be nice).
I get the feeling some objectors to the shocking, horrendous housing development prefer the 'new Crystal Palace' scheme instead with its acres of concrete and car parking. Hmm, odd that.
For once the powers that be are proposing something that is a vast improvement for the lives of thousands of people who use the park, with a hugely increased amount of accessible green (as opposed to grey) space with the most minor of compromises, yet some people enjoy the feeling of their own righteous indignation so much that they would rather see the whole thing scuppered.
Oh well, with the current state of the economy and public finances you will probably get your wish and the park will see barely more than a lawnmower for another 20 years. Great.
I can imagine what 132 new homes will do to traffic and as it is in the least densely populated side of the park with the widest roads where congestion tends to be less of a problem I can imagine the impact will be relatively small. As I imagine it will be the usual London developer mix of relatively small units unlikely to be participating in the school run I imagine that the addition to the average rush hour will be a handful of vehicles.
What gets me is the general tone of these objections seem to be that Bromley etc are acting totally against the wishes of some vast majority who support THEIR point of view. The proposal is for a vastly improved park compared to the half-tarmaced mess it is now yet some people would rather stall this further than allow us all to benefit (perhaps in our lifetime would be nice).
I get the feeling some objectors to the shocking, horrendous housing development prefer the 'new Crystal Palace' scheme instead with its acres of concrete and car parking. Hmm, odd that.
For once the powers that be are proposing something that is a vast improvement for the lives of thousands of people who use the park, with a hugely increased amount of accessible green (as opposed to grey) space with the most minor of compromises, yet some people enjoy the feeling of their own righteous indignation so much that they would rather see the whole thing scuppered.
Oh well, with the current state of the economy and public finances you will probably get your wish and the park will see barely more than a lawnmower for another 20 years. Great.
I tend to agree with adrian. I'm far from thrilled about the development of parkland, and very strongly oppose it in principle. That said, the benefits for what's currently a fairly underused and in some areas derelict park outweigh my concerns. If they stick to the proposal I think most people will be pleased with the outcome.
With that said, I don't at all like the precedent that this could set for modern times. It's not like they can change the developed land back. Hopefully this will be a one-off necessity.
With that said, I don't at all like the precedent that this could set for modern times. It's not like they can change the developed land back. Hopefully this will be a one-off necessity.
Councillor Getgood (Penge/Cator Ward of Bromley) has kindly given me permission to reprint his report of the council meeting approving the plan:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Here's my take. Sorry it's so long - but so was the meeting:
The London Development Agency’s Master Plan for Crystal Palace Park was approved at Bromley’s Development Control Committee on Tuesday evening. I was amongst the majority that voted in favour. It is mainly an outline plan and building and design aspects will have to come back to a committee for detailed approval.
There was a fair turn out of objectors but no where near as many as promised. The overflow rooms were not needed. Both objectors and supporters put their views across but there were not really any new issues to consider.
The majority view was that this is the best opportunity we have not only to stop the rot of the park but to expand and enhance it and to secure it’s future. On balance the plan was approved. Some members voted against – not sure how many. They got a round of applause from the gallery but it was on false pretences. They weren’t intending to vote against the plans but wanted to hide behind a deferral. Some times you have to face up and make decisions.
As the only member of the committee with residents close to the park, I was convinced that the plan gave people in Penge the best hope of a park they can be proud of.
Many of the objections were unfounded or misguided. Bullet points of the arguments were:
• Building on or next to Metropolitan Open Land should only be allowed in very special circumstances. The opportunity to improve and secure the park’s future while extending the green park available for public use seemed a good deal to me.
• The amount of building is tiny in relation to the park as a whole and the overall amount of green land available for public use will increase significantly. None of the proposed building is on land currently open to the general users of the park.
• The future of the bat colonies was a concern but the ecological advice was that this could be achieved. Details of lighting and building design will come at the detailed application stage. If the bars are still under threat, the development will not get a license anyway.
• The size and design of the proposed housing will depend on a future detailed planning application. Our officers have negotiated parameters which should Mean they are in keeping with surroundings. If not, we can refuse them.
• There is no precedent for building on park land here. Bromley Council have always been vigilant in protecting open land unless there are special circumstances. This will remain the case. In any case, in planning law you cannot argue that because a principle was allowed once, it should be allowed again.
• The legal agreement between the council and the LDA ensures that all money raised by the sale of housing will be ring fenced for use in the first phase of improvements. It also ensures that improvements are delivered before the houses are occupied.
• The Capel Manor building on Ledrington Rd was the most contentious proposal. It should not have been included in the overall park application. If it had been submitted on its own it may well have been refused. The green in Ledrington Rd is not really considered as part of the park – more a local amenity. The LDA should not have been using the steamroller of the park application to turn over a small local amenity. On the other hand, most people have a building on the other side of the road form their back gardens and the Ledrington Rd residents do have the whole park a few yards away to enjoy as open space. This decision was the most uncomfortable of the evening, however.
There are undoubtedly risks associated with this application. The LDA could be wound up tomorrow. The current staff will leave at some time and may be replaced by others who do not share their vision. We have no idea whether the money needed for the rest of the park improvements will be available. But at least we have a vision and a plan for the first round of improvements. I tried to get the Paxton Axis and the Museum included in the legal agreement but it didn’t seem to work. We shall have to rely on the ability of the LDA to drive these through.
In the end I had to ask myself whether there was anything in the first phase of improvements that I would be ashamed of. On the contrary, the vast majority of people living in Penge are desperate to see their park upgraded. A small amount of development on the edge of the park in land that they have never been able to sue is a price worth paying. The benefits accrued far outweigh other issues. Those who disagree are trying to imposing their “principles” over the great benefit for the community. This is a self indulgence I cannot support.
I am sorry this is so long but I wanted to cover as many points as possible. I don’t particularly want to go through the arguments again but if anyone wants more details on any aspects, post here and I’ll try to help.
A final thought. Even now, this application has to be considered by the Mayor of London and the Government Office for London. Let’s get on with it.
--------------------
Cllr John Getgood
Penge & Cator
http://www.readmyday.co.uk/JohnGetgood
This first appeared at virtualnorwood.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Here's my take. Sorry it's so long - but so was the meeting:
The London Development Agency’s Master Plan for Crystal Palace Park was approved at Bromley’s Development Control Committee on Tuesday evening. I was amongst the majority that voted in favour. It is mainly an outline plan and building and design aspects will have to come back to a committee for detailed approval.
There was a fair turn out of objectors but no where near as many as promised. The overflow rooms were not needed. Both objectors and supporters put their views across but there were not really any new issues to consider.
The majority view was that this is the best opportunity we have not only to stop the rot of the park but to expand and enhance it and to secure it’s future. On balance the plan was approved. Some members voted against – not sure how many. They got a round of applause from the gallery but it was on false pretences. They weren’t intending to vote against the plans but wanted to hide behind a deferral. Some times you have to face up and make decisions.
As the only member of the committee with residents close to the park, I was convinced that the plan gave people in Penge the best hope of a park they can be proud of.
Many of the objections were unfounded or misguided. Bullet points of the arguments were:
• Building on or next to Metropolitan Open Land should only be allowed in very special circumstances. The opportunity to improve and secure the park’s future while extending the green park available for public use seemed a good deal to me.
• The amount of building is tiny in relation to the park as a whole and the overall amount of green land available for public use will increase significantly. None of the proposed building is on land currently open to the general users of the park.
• The future of the bat colonies was a concern but the ecological advice was that this could be achieved. Details of lighting and building design will come at the detailed application stage. If the bars are still under threat, the development will not get a license anyway.
• The size and design of the proposed housing will depend on a future detailed planning application. Our officers have negotiated parameters which should Mean they are in keeping with surroundings. If not, we can refuse them.
• There is no precedent for building on park land here. Bromley Council have always been vigilant in protecting open land unless there are special circumstances. This will remain the case. In any case, in planning law you cannot argue that because a principle was allowed once, it should be allowed again.
• The legal agreement between the council and the LDA ensures that all money raised by the sale of housing will be ring fenced for use in the first phase of improvements. It also ensures that improvements are delivered before the houses are occupied.
• The Capel Manor building on Ledrington Rd was the most contentious proposal. It should not have been included in the overall park application. If it had been submitted on its own it may well have been refused. The green in Ledrington Rd is not really considered as part of the park – more a local amenity. The LDA should not have been using the steamroller of the park application to turn over a small local amenity. On the other hand, most people have a building on the other side of the road form their back gardens and the Ledrington Rd residents do have the whole park a few yards away to enjoy as open space. This decision was the most uncomfortable of the evening, however.
There are undoubtedly risks associated with this application. The LDA could be wound up tomorrow. The current staff will leave at some time and may be replaced by others who do not share their vision. We have no idea whether the money needed for the rest of the park improvements will be available. But at least we have a vision and a plan for the first round of improvements. I tried to get the Paxton Axis and the Museum included in the legal agreement but it didn’t seem to work. We shall have to rely on the ability of the LDA to drive these through.
In the end I had to ask myself whether there was anything in the first phase of improvements that I would be ashamed of. On the contrary, the vast majority of people living in Penge are desperate to see their park upgraded. A small amount of development on the edge of the park in land that they have never been able to sue is a price worth paying. The benefits accrued far outweigh other issues. Those who disagree are trying to imposing their “principles” over the great benefit for the community. This is a self indulgence I cannot support.
I am sorry this is so long but I wanted to cover as many points as possible. I don’t particularly want to go through the arguments again but if anyone wants more details on any aspects, post here and I’ll try to help.
A final thought. Even now, this application has to be considered by the Mayor of London and the Government Office for London. Let’s get on with it.
--------------------
Cllr John Getgood
Penge & Cator
http://www.readmyday.co.uk/JohnGetgood
This first appeared at virtualnorwood.com
Adrian, how would you like a development of 132 new homes built a hundred yards from your door? Have you seen the congestion at this corner of the park at rush hour? I suspect not.
'most minor of compromises', 'the wishes of some vast majority who support THEIR point of view'.........You sound like you work for Bromley Council.
How do you know the vast majority agree with the councils point of view?
The park certainly needs some renovation and removal of the concrete but this doesn't justify the absurd sums mentioned to do this and the ridiculous number of homes suggested.
You sound a bit like a Mail reader yourself.
'most minor of compromises', 'the wishes of some vast majority who support THEIR point of view'.........You sound like you work for Bromley Council.
How do you know the vast majority agree with the councils point of view?
The park certainly needs some renovation and removal of the concrete but this doesn't justify the absurd sums mentioned to do this and the ridiculous number of homes suggested.
You sound a bit like a Mail reader yourself.
Maybe he was one of the hundreds of people who went to one of the numerous public meetings, or filled out a survey on the LDA's proposals...
Of whom, in general said: "We're generally positive about the proposal, not that happy about the housing, but it's not that many, and it's only on already built on land anyway". Because the understand the difference between "park" (open grassland) and "caravan park" (private business).
As it happens, one of the building sites will be near my house. Looking at what it will replace, it's a compromise I'm totally happy to live with. I actully use the park every day, and am heartily fed up with it's all-round shabbiness, plus the huge amount of parkland currently taken up by car parks.
The reduction of car journeys when the car parks are removed from the centre of the parks is, of course, something that doesn't tend to be mentioned by opponents. Funny that.
Of whom, in general said: "We're generally positive about the proposal, not that happy about the housing, but it's not that many, and it's only on already built on land anyway". Because the understand the difference between "park" (open grassland) and "caravan park" (private business).
As it happens, one of the building sites will be near my house. Looking at what it will replace, it's a compromise I'm totally happy to live with. I actully use the park every day, and am heartily fed up with it's all-round shabbiness, plus the huge amount of parkland currently taken up by car parks.
The reduction of car journeys when the car parks are removed from the centre of the parks is, of course, something that doesn't tend to be mentioned by opponents. Funny that.
i live in crystal palace park road and i am very happy with the lda's plans.
i am also an architect so i can read the plans well enough and believe it to be a very fair and balance masterplan. We end up with more parkland then we started off with anyway. I think the area along the park edge will benefit from some infill housing to replace those previously lost through fire.
the park is derelect and needs saving NOW and this is the best opportunity to do this. ENGLISH HERITAGE have given there plan full support
CPCA are trying to stoke up dissent again straight after bromley gave it the go ahead like a bunch of sore loosers. accept the decision you muppets and accept the fact that the vast majority want the plans to go ahead housing or not. and stop dropping your 'call to riot' leaflets through my front door
i am also an architect so i can read the plans well enough and believe it to be a very fair and balance masterplan. We end up with more parkland then we started off with anyway. I think the area along the park edge will benefit from some infill housing to replace those previously lost through fire.
the park is derelect and needs saving NOW and this is the best opportunity to do this. ENGLISH HERITAGE have given there plan full support
CPCA are trying to stoke up dissent again straight after bromley gave it the go ahead like a bunch of sore loosers. accept the decision you muppets and accept the fact that the vast majority want the plans to go ahead housing or not. and stop dropping your 'call to riot' leaflets through my front door
zzzzzzParks need constant maintenance - part of the council tax pays for this.
If the park is going to be sold bit by bit to keep the remainder in good repair, then there are 2 obvious questions:
Where is the money going that is set aside for the upkeep the park?
If a chunk is sold every 5 years, how much of the park will be left for our grandchildren?
If the park is going to be sold bit by bit to keep the remainder in good repair, then there are 2 obvious questions:
Where is the money going that is set aside for the upkeep the park?
If a chunk is sold every 5 years, how much of the park will be left for our grandchildren?
-
SydenhamHillAndy
- Posts: 116
- Joined: 20 Jul 2007 15:01
- Location: SE26
It's disappointing to see how the CPCA are only representing opposition to this development. I was banned from Virtual Norwood for expressing support of a previous proposal (not the cinema, that was just bonkers) and criticising the CPCA for hijacking the consultation - I do hope that won't be the case this time.
I think CPCA should have a duty of care to represent all opinions in their community, you can see from the genuine discussion on this forum that people are making considered opinions and not just dismissing the proposal out of hand.
My main concern is that the money is spent wisely. I lived on Thicket Road during the improvement work and as far as I could see a small amount of mud was moved, some dead plants were installed, the dinosaurs were repainted and boats removed at the cost of millions. When the council is able to mis-spend our council tax so easily I worry that the £67 million won't even buy a small picnic bench.
I think CPCA should have a duty of care to represent all opinions in their community, you can see from the genuine discussion on this forum that people are making considered opinions and not just dismissing the proposal out of hand.
My main concern is that the money is spent wisely. I lived on Thicket Road during the improvement work and as far as I could see a small amount of mud was moved, some dead plants were installed, the dinosaurs were repainted and boats removed at the cost of millions. When the council is able to mis-spend our council tax so easily I worry that the £67 million won't even buy a small picnic bench.
Yes it would be nice if community organisations represented the views of the community (note the plural) and encouraged open discussion on a complex and controversial subject. However, CPCA has targetted both Virtual Norwood and Sydenham Town Forums for allegedly defamatory statements. CPCA's accusations can be found here:
http://www.sydenham.org.uk/comment_cpca ... r_foe.html
My response is here:
http://www.sydenham.org.uk/comment_cpca ... ponse.html
Virtual Norwood, as I understand it, took the precautionary policy of banning all comment on CPCA. We haven't. However, I may be more keen than usual in moderating any comment that could possibly be interpreted as defamatory because of a perceived threat of litigation. I hope that doesn't mean you should feel restricted in posting constructive criticism or praise of CPCA.
Admin
http://www.sydenham.org.uk/comment_cpca ... r_foe.html
My response is here:
http://www.sydenham.org.uk/comment_cpca ... ponse.html
Virtual Norwood, as I understand it, took the precautionary policy of banning all comment on CPCA. We haven't. However, I may be more keen than usual in moderating any comment that could possibly be interpreted as defamatory because of a perceived threat of litigation. I hope that doesn't mean you should feel restricted in posting constructive criticism or praise of CPCA.
Admin