Houses built in Crystal palace park?

[downthehill]

In what way is it the "thin end of the wedge" ?

The sale of metropolitan parkland can only be authorised if highly specific "very special reasons" have been demonstrated - and in this case that involved setting out how the scheme fitted in to large, complex planning application, a full 6 month public enquiry before a planning inspector at whch all parties wee given ample opportunity to put thier case, the approval of the Secretary of State and a hard fought legal battle to resolve.

IMHO the chances of this being repeated are zero.

It's a one off for a very specific purpose of raising some of the revenue needed to implement the masterplan.

It's all very well taking a stand on the general prnciple of selling parkland for housing but none of teh "No" camp, as far as I can see, is ever willing to set out a viable alternative.

There is no pot of gold sitting around in either the LDA or Bromleys coffers to spend on the park, more so now than ever given the cuts to local authority funding.

The CPCA challenge to the MP would, if succesful, have set aside the approval of all of it, not just the housing elements. T

he housing may have been the motivation for the challenge but the net effect would have been setting aside the SoS's approval of the entire planning application.

IMHO this would have left the park without a settled, transparent, and approved planning application which provides a road map for the future of the park.(the LDA could hardly resubmit a revised application, without houisng, given it has now been abolished).

Scrapping the MP or setting it aside would , IMHO, have left the park totally at the mercy of yet more alternative and speculative proposals like commercial development of the topsite.

The legal agreements I referred to are clear in their terms - £11 million , paid up front, before a single brick is laid, and which must be used for specificied parts of of the MP before occupation of the housing.

And the money is , and always was, only seen as part of a funding solution - including exploring match funding from other sources because the MP was designed to be implemented in phases, not all at once. The need to explore other funding sources was clearly articulated as were potential sources (see page 49 of this , for example http://www.crystalpa...on_Strategy.pdf)

As matters stand:

1. Bromley are currently exploring whether their contribution to Lee Valley Park could be redirected to CPP

2. We have the new Executive Board in place looking at a community trust to run the park (including raising revenue). The Executive Board includes the Eden Foundation (which I think most will admit are pretty good at fusing ecology with commercial revenue), and English Heritage are on board too - so we might, just might , have a decent shot at a profesionally put together appliction by well informed stakeholders for significant capital from other sources - for example by a Heritage Lottery fund application which is matched/seeded by the money from housing.

3. We have the LDA providing £2 million (with more to follow perhaps)

4. We have the chance of the future management of the Park being placed in the hands of a Community Trust, rather than Bromley alone, so that potentially contentious decisions about raising both future capital and operational costs are made collectively rather than by a single Council which, understandably in my view, is not particularly willing to have to bear the cost alone, out Bromley council tax payers pockets, of maintaining what is a regional, rather than a local , park used by a large number of people from across London and the UK.

5. The housing involves selling off parts of the park which have not been acessible "parkland" for a very long time and , in one case, is already occupied by a commercial business (the caravan club) which occupies over 1 acre more of parkland than than wouuld be the case with the housing and which , comparing annual rents against a potential of £5-£6million of capital from sale of the site , does not IMHO offer best value in relation to badly needed park funding.

Personally I think the above are positive signs which offer hope for the future of the park.

And far far better than another decade of uncertainty over the park - which, IMHO, would do nothing other than play into the hands of those who feel that the best funding solution would be a Hotel and leisure complex on the top site or a deal with the CPFC to turn over a National sports asset, adjacent to a tranquil public park, to a consortia of private businessmen for football matches and, possibly, concerts .

Better the devil you know in my view.

[Duke of Clarence]

This is the thin end of the wedge.

Too true Eagle.

Old downy needs to step up and get to grips with the facts. To dismiss the views of those who do not support the sale of parkland for housing as "hyperbole" is as arrogant as it is intolerant.

The only hyperbole being peddled here is that the building of housing will result in increased parkland. That is quite frankly a load of tosh. The increased parkland mentioned will be created from turning tarmac to turf by relocating one of the events carparks to the hilltop.

The turning of tarmac to turf is welcome but it's not quite the green dream some seem to think. The turfing over of the carpark means new parking space is needed for displaced events parking. Guess where the Masterplan will be relocating the carpark? The hilltop!
Yes the hill top at the side of the transmitter will be turned from turf to tarmac - so gain/loose you decide.

The figures downy draws attention to are dated and not seeped in any sort of reality.

The £11m clause is no safety net for CPP as that number was reached in 2007 when it was expected £11m would go towards funding an implentation cost of £68m.

Today the costs of implementation have moire than doubled, at the High Court on 7th March the numbers were £125m. So the figure agreed by the SoS has in effect been halved.

The Masterplan did not protect CPP from the loss of value of the land sale but then again the Masterplan was not about protecting CPP! What we have on the cards, supported by Bromley, Borris and the bods is a very grand Masterplan for a much loved heritage park that can only be implemented by selling off bits of it and whilst that has the support of downy and chums it certainly doesn't sit well with the House of Clarence nor many other park users who still object to the housing aspect.

[dickp]

Having has the misfortune to sit through endless consultation meetings during the masterplan creation phase, I think it's just not worth the effort in having any more discussions on this point.

To the rest of you, who are not aware of the background to the plan, downthehill and lee are basing what they say on the official plans, which now have outline planning permission. Make of that what you will.

[leenewham]

Where does it say the car park will be relocated Duke, can you give us a link or a picture or a direct quote for that.

What do you mean by hilltop? Can you be specific?

I'm not seeing it on the masterplan images:
http://www.designforlondon.gov.uk/what- ... lan/pic/2/

In my previous post, was I correct in the areas of the map where the housing will be placed Duke?

You may also be interested in this:
http://www.crystalpalacecampaign.org/cpact1990.htm

The land was deemed suitable for housing an an act of parliament 22 years ago.

[downthehill]

You will have to forgive me "dukey" if I find it a bit rich that you regard my holding a differnt view on the housing makes me "intolerant and arrogant"

Using such terms is, IMHO, a bit of tricky path for those on the no camign to go down - as many lonstanding members of this forum will remember from the previous fall out aimed by some of the no campign at those who had, lord forbid, the timerity to object to both their arguments and how they chose to conduct themselves

http://www.sydenham.org.uk/comment_cpca ... r_foe.html
http://www.sydenham.org.uk/comment_cpca ... ponse.html
http://forum.sydenham.org.uk/viewtopic.php?t=996

[downthehill]

The car parking point , I think, refers to the fact that the MP proposes that the tree lined boulevard to be constructed at the topsite (see page 107-110 in this link) would , occassionally, be used for overspill car parking when large events are held in the park.

This would be instead of the current situation where the grassed area of the lower terarces is used for overspill - as anyone who actually uses the park at a weekend can attest to whenever a triathlon or swimming gala is on.

Quite what the problem is with the idea that car should park at the top of the park, near a main road, and on an occasional basis instead of parking smack bang in the middle of the park on a grassed area, depriving the use of that land to park user users for football,picnics , bike riding , kite flying etc is beyond me.

As is it's relavnce to the housing, which is the subject of the thread.

http://www.crystalpalacecampaign.org/Ma ... ntVOL1.pdf

[Eagle]

Down the Hill
You say no chance of devolpment being repeated.

When you say no chance , is it more likely than Greece getting another bailout.

History tells us Never does not usually mean Never.

Listen to His Eminence the Duke.

[Duke of Clarence]

Down the Hill
You say no chance of devolpment being repeated.
When you say no chance , is it more likely than Greece getting another bailout.
History tells us Never does not usually mean Never.
Listen to His Eminence the Duke.

Quite right Eagle but somehow I don't think listening is on his radar!

You will have to forgive me "dukey" if I find it a bit rich that you regard my holding a differnt view on the housing makes me "intolerant and arrogant"

You appear to be a trifle confused. This is what was posted:

"To dismiss the views of those who do not support the sale of parkland for housing as "hyperbole" is as arrogant as it is intolerant."

Let me make it crystal clear, it is not your point of view that I find arrogant and intolerant it is the way you dimiss and distort the views that you don't share.

Having has the misfortune to sit through endless consultation meetings during the masterplan creation phase, I think it's just not worth the effort in having any more discussions on this point.

I agree - the challenge to the Masterplan's failed. The OP asked what people thought about it and there's been a mixed response. Nothing I can say can alter that but I think it's a stitch up and am disappointed to see the sale of MOL parkland being accepted so readily.

[leenewham]

DUKE, do you fancy answering any of my questions?

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[downthehill]

There's no chance because it would involve another detailed planning applications and the applicant being able to demostrate that "very special circumstances" (VSC's) are present to justify a sale - That is , IMHO , highly unlikely when the planning application, and in particular the case ofor VSC's, has already been made and determined.

This decison will not, IMHO, open the floodgates and those who seek to imply that it might are, IMHO scareongering rather than focussing on the actuality. The Indepenedent Planning Inspector's view was this (para 1265 of his report)

"I see no reason why this case should act as a precedent encouraging development within London Parks. As in the Green Belt, VSCs are peculiar to each case and do not set general rules. In my view, because of the VSCs identified, the proposals would enhance rather than harm the overall openness of the Park’s MOL."

The LDA's case, and other MP supporter case and evidence relating to VSR's is discussed here at para's 227-242, 332-343, 373-380. The CPCA's and other can be read at 566-603. The Inspector's views on VSC's can be read at 1255 to 1265

http://www.crystalpalacecampaign.org/Ma ... 100721.pdf

[downthehill]

it is not your point of view that I find arrogant and intolerant it is the way you dimiss and distort the views that you don't share.

and this coming fom someone whose approach to the view of others, expressed on another local forum, is to brand supporters of the materplan as "MPdophiles" - Nice.

To dismiss the views of those who do not support the sale of parkland for housing as "hyperbole" is as arrogant as it is intolerant."

What I said was that there was alot of inaccurate hyperbole about the housing - I said nothing at all about the view of those who, on principle, do not agree with the sale of parkland for housing under any circumstances. I was referring to hwo information is (mis)represented.

Go back and read my exact words before you start talking about distortions please




Over and out.

[Duke of Clarence]

Over and out.

That's good to hear!

DUKE, do you fancy answering any of my questions?

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

Sorry I missed your question about hilltop Lee - were there any others?

I don't have a link to any drawings but the area proposed is the other side of the bus station - it is expected to be an overspill car park used much in the same way the Terraces are now to facilitate major events.

Again I don't think the sums have been done. The Terraces are fully used during events and that is with the carpark in use. The parking on the Parade area cannot accomodate as many vehichles as the Terraces do and we'll be a carpark down. My Dukeometer tells me there's going to be quite a bit of parking displacement - I wonder how this will effect the surrounding residential roads?

[ALIB]

I am sitting uncomfortably on the fence on this one.
On one hand the Planning Inspector has said each case should be judged on its own merits, and CPP should not set a precedent.

However, I think it does create a precedent. How can it not do ? Not only does this put a lot of other (national) park spaces under threat, but it also leaves the door ajar for developing further areas of Crystal Palace Park, if and when the need arises.

However, looking at CP Park in isolation, I broadly agree with the Planning Inspectorates comments.

[Eagle]

I would like to refer to how developers have overs the years gradually eaten away at Sydenham ( Dulwich ) Hill Woods.
I have lost count of how many times the woods have been eaten in to with the understanding that this would be the last time.

Also the word Should , mentioned by the official , should have been will NOT .

Should is very weak.

[downthehill]

In my previous post, was I correct in the areas of the map where the housing will be placed

Yes - completely correct. As you were with the picture which show the difference between the landmass occupied by the proposed housing and the much larger land mass occupied by the caravan park - which would return to parkland under the scheme

[downthehill]

Should is very weak

I guess that that rather depends on whose view you prefer to rely on

1. A "should not" view from a qualified planning inspector (who is neither a local nor a political appointee), who is accustomed to considering both planning law and dealing with highly contentious cases and who heard all (not a selected account) of the evidence during a 6 months hearing before weighing up whether VSC's were present and giving his view

or

2. The views of those who are implacably opposed to any sale, in any circumstances, and who seem quite happy to advance tier case by making unevidenced suggestions that this will open the floodgates - without acknowledging that that this one case alone has taken over 8 years, a multi million planning application and enquiry, the approval off the Secretary of State, and finally a high court judge to uphold that VSC's were present and the application was lawfully approved

[leenewham]

Over and out.

That's good to hear!

DUKE, do you fancy answering any of my questions?

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

Sorry I missed your question about hilltop Lee - were there any others?

Yes there were, but Down the Hill answered them so don't worry. I wanted to check where the houses were being built and if my post was correct. Which apparently it is.

So to clarify, you don't have any evidence or links or drawings or written text saying where this car park will be, it's not on the drawings I posted from Design For London or on any of the drawings I posted but you know where it is and no-one else does.

And it's bad to lose car park which will be turned back into a park right bang in the middle but it's not ok to convert a section of a caravan park form semi permanent dwellings to permanent dwellings?

Can I ask Duke, are there any aspects of the masterplan that you do agree with?

Do you think the park needs any help whatsoever or should it be left to slowly decay further than it currently has?

I'd genuinely like to know. I honestly don't understand the objections.

[Eagle]

I am not to worried about losing a car park. People travel by public transport or walk to the park.
The Car park should be returned to what it was in 1850.

We have got plenty of houses in Sydenham already. Although would imagine the future residents will claim to be in Upper Norwood or Crystal Palace or even Dulwich.

[Duke of Clarence]

Lee - you'll find downy's covered your carpark query but somehow I don't think a link to the exact position of this carpark is going to affect your support of the building of houses on this historic park.

And in answer to your question asking whether there's anything I like about the Masterplan, the answer is I do not think any aspect of the scheme is worth selling off sections of the park for housing.

I do not share the view that this will be the end of housing in CPP nor do I share the view that this will not set a precedent - it already has. It is highly likely that this case will be cited in future planning cases to argue for further development of parkland. The Very Special Circumstances centre around lack of revenue therefore VSCs can be applied to many other parks.

It is unfortunate that some are unable to set out support for the masterplan without demeaning or undermining the views of those who don't support it, as it brings a hostile and unpleasant tone to the discussion:

"The views of those who are implacably opposed to any sale, in any circumstances, and who seem quite happy to advance tier case by making unevidenced suggestions that this will open the floodgates"

Just because people do not agree that houses should be built on parks does not mean they are implaccable and no one has to give evidence or justify why they don't want to see housing developments in CPP. You either do or you don't. The onus was on the body behind the developments to make the case for selling the parkland for housing.

And no-one apart from downy has claimed it would open up floodgates. For accuracy and to avoid further confusion what has been discussed is the fact this case sets a precedent - that is a legal term that means a "rule of law established for the first time by a court for a particular type of case is thereafter referred to in deciding similar cases."


I have a question for you Lee, do you think flogging public amenities to fund their development is something to be proud of? Perhaps you could knock up a What If of housing developments in say, Kelsey Park and Sydenham Woods - be great way to fund their improvements and solve housing shortage. Two birds one stone ... I'm afraid it's all down hill from here!

[ALIB]

i initially was in favour of the Masterplan. Indeed there are many facets that would hugely benefit the park, with potential revenue streams, from say the cricket pitch or cafe and bringing general tourism to the area.
'Planning Creep', as opposed to opening the floodgates is a more likely outcome. It will set a precedent that will be used by other Local Authorities to avoid the higher cost of building on Brownfield sites.
I can see both sides of the argument. In effect there will be a net gain of land for Crystal Palace Park with the benefit of releasing funds for the Park improvements.

However, there is an important principle at stake, that will be used by other LA's and may even give cause for future developments in CPP.