Houses built in Crystal palace park?

[leenewham]

Hi duke,

Im sure you are taking my posts in the good nature they are intended. We disagree on this issue and thats fine in my book. We just see this from different points of view.

But I would like to know, if there was no housing, what do you think to the rest if the masterplan and the plans for the park? just ignore the housing, imagine there mever was a plan to build any dwellings in rockhills, what about the rest if the plan?

The plans are quite major and all debate seems to rest on one issue.

To answer your question, Do I think we should Sell of parks to fund their development and am i proud of that as a straategy, well, obviously the answer is no. I think crystal palace is a special case, precident has been set and has resulted in some fine houses and athe 1990 act of parliament has already set out areas of the park for building.

As you know, I'm not an architect so that means I dont design houses. And I'm sure that your comment was tongue in cheek anyway, as I'm sure you appreciate that we spend a lot of time on all the work we do locally, be it the 3 days it took to do the Designs for the cinema in Crystal Palace, the redesign of shops in Sydenham Road, the work for the library and Save Lewisham Libraries campaign, save Forest Hill Pools, Friends of Home Park and even the Sydenham society logo, all of which we have done for free.

As for the park, I think it needs help. If building on fringes of the park already designated as allowed by an act of parliament 22 years ago is the best way of doing it, then I'd support it. But pressure must be made to ensure that the design of the houses is good quality, like the ones built there under similar circumstances 100plus years ago.

I don't believe this will open the floodgates to allowing building in other parks, but thats a personal view and not based on any Expertise.

Anyway I'm more concerned about the top site (the reason I am concered about your comments about the car park) than housing and the parts of the park I can actually use. Its a great park.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

Edited due to original post being typed on an ipad which is almost impossible!

[downthehill]

You’ll have to forgive me “Dukey” if I disagree with your claim to the moral high ground by accusing me of hostile tone and language. There’s only one poster on this thread who has resorted to accusing someone with a counter point of view as being arrogant and intolerant, of not listening and of resorting to childish denigration (“old downey” , “its all downhill from here” etc, etc - my how I laughed). Perhaps you would care to look up another “h” word, hypocrisy, before accusing others of hostility.

Lee – you a raise a good point about the topsite and touch on one the main reasons I support the masterplan as a whole.

The legal challenge to the approval of the masterplan, whilst motivated over the housing, would, if successful, have set aside approval of the entire plan, not just the housing elements.

This would effectively have meant that rather than have a clear, transparent and identifiable “roadmap” for the park, which had gone through a lengthy public consultation process and a detailed planning enquiry, the park’s future would, once again, have been left completely uncertain.

The challenge to the approval of the MP would, if successful, have thrown the baby out with the bathwater so to speak , purely to defeat the housing element of it.

And therein, in my opinion, lies a major risk of setting aside the masterplan. and one which I do not believe that any of the No campaign has ever addressed - namely what would be the long term consequences of setting aside the MP ?

Bromley Council has made it very clear that they are not willing to fund the park on their own (something they reiterated in October last year when they said (link below) “The London Borough of Bromley has not been able to guarantee the level of investment required given the park‟s status as a national asset. In the current economic climate where there are competing priorities on local authority funding, this is unlikely to improve.”

http://cds.bromley.gov.uk/mgConvert2PDF.aspx?ID=10391

So without the masterplan which Bromley have committed to trying to implement (and which is one of the aims of the trust proposals in referred to in the link) and without the prospect of raising any improvement capital from housing, what will/would have happened to the park ?

In my view the most likely outcome would have been yet more, even less appealing, schemes for the park will be pushed forward – such as

1. The proposals to fund the park by income derived from a share of profits of a huge hotel and leisure complex built on the topsite (the new crystal place idea) or

2. Deriving income from whatever scraps off the table might be thrown the parks way as part of a deal between the LDA, Bromley and CPFC to bring CPFC to the National athletic stadium

And don’t be fooled into thinking these are hypothetical risks.

For example:

The CP Chamber of Commerce, formerly Chaired by Ray Hall (the guy behind the new crystal place idea) has previously lobbied Croydon Council to include, as part of its core planning strategy, support for both the NCP and CPFC returning to park as part of a drive to make Upper Norwood the commercial centre of “central south London”. The chamber has also had guest speakers from the team behind Chessington World of Adventures, as part of presenattions about the NCP idea

CPFC’s plans have also been set out –

http://www.cpfc.co.uk/staticFiles/31/67 ... 489,00.pdf

These include the prospect not only of 21 football matches attracting 25-40,000 people every other Saturday from September to May but also the idea of other revenue from this “Unique parkland setting, ideal for summer concerts”

And they have already hinted that they are looking at a deal – (To quote from their presentation - “We will also be looking in-depth at how we can work with the LDA to reduce running costs, and Bromley council to help make the park masterplan a reality”)

So IMHO whilst the MP, part funded by housing, and implemented by or through a Community Trust may not be everyone’s preference I personally think its is far , far better than some of the potential alternatives which might be pursued if the MP, and the housing funding, had been set aside as a result of the legal challenge.

Incidentally the phased costing of the MP is also described (at para 3.12 of the link) and Bromley Council are still referring, as recently as October 2011, to £67 million – not the £125 million as has been suggested.

[ALIB]

i recall the discussion about the proposed move by Crystal Palace FC to Crystal Palace Park on STF also got wildly heated and personal.
No Local Authority is capable of spending money on CPP to maintain it, let alone improve it.
And residents close to CPP should not expect a beautiful empty Park (for their own private use) to be funded by the tax-payer

Significant funds have to come from somewhere. And yes, it will be a compromise.

Houses ?
Football club ?
Significant private ventures, such as hotels and cinema ?

Crystal Palace Park is simply not used enough by the wider public to justify tax-payers expenditure

[downthehill]

Significant funds have to come from somewhere. And yes, it will be a compromise

Precisely. In an ideal world the park, as a major London/regional park would get funding from the GLA, like it did by the GLC.

But we don't live in an ideal world and if you you feel the park is in need of significant investment, the money has to be found somewhere

I have yet to see/read a single funding alternative put forward by the more, to use a neutral term, vigorous elements of the No campaign or any explanation of what they say would have been the consequences for the park had the legal challenge to defeat the MP suceeded.

Legal actions have consequences and one assumes that the consequences of the legal action for the park were thought about by those who brought the action, purportedly on behalf of the community .

The legal action was taken by the Chairman of one local community association with a membership of no more than 500-800 people. Despite this the Claim form lodged with the court included claims that the Chairman of the CPCA was "working not only for the interests of the Crystal Palace area but also the whole of Greater London (for the enjoyment of whom Metropolitan open land is designated) and "in the environmental amenity interests of the whole of the wider Crystal Palace community".

These are big, big claims in court documents, verified by a statement of truth, in relation to a challenge to the masterplan, in circumstances where other members of the crystal palace community (and other surrounding areas) support it.

This is why I feel that those who pursued the legal challenge, purportedly to protect the interests of the "wider Crystal palace community" to the MP owe , and continue to owe, those other members of the community who did support it, a duty to explain:

1. What they say/believe would have been the long term consequences for the park if approval of the masterplan was set aside and

2. What they say should be the alternative for funding capital for improvements

[davegr]

Am I the only one who thinks that while the park might be a little tatty around the edges and could do with a few quid spent on it, it isn't the 'rundown' park that all the politicians and grubby property developers tell us? Generally I find the park fairly well maintained, although more decent toilet facilities would be good.

Some of the proposed pictures seem to be completely over the top. Greenhouses of the type illustrated will need enormous money spent on maintenance.

As has been alluded to in this thread, surely there has to be a limit how much housing should be built in an area that struggles with places for schools, doctors etc.

[Voyageur]

Am I the only one who thinks that while the park might be a little tatty around the edges and could do with a few quid spent on it, it isn't the 'rundown' park that all the politicians and grubby property developers tell us? Generally I find the park fairly well maintained, although more decent toilet facilities would be good.

By no means davegr,

I have lived around CP park for over 25 years and have used it throughout those years with great pleasure and enjoyment. I love all its busy, bustly areas, its quiet, secluded nooks and crannies and have even become very fond of the NSC building over the years (!). I don't think much can be done to 'save' the terraces and to be quite honest I rather like them as they are. We walk around the park often and it generally feels pretty well run - I have to say I am glad to see the pedallos back in action though

[ALIB]

just to give food for thought, and a few comparisons.

the CPCA complain relentlessly about concerts and events that are very rare in the park. They complain about traffic and noise disturbance.
So why were the recent proposed garden party events cancelled ?
http://www.efestivals.co.uk/festivals/others2012/cpgp/
The stage was unsafe, that's why. So if there were to be future 'events', who is expected to foot the bill for the stage repairs ?
Why did Crystal Palace Park Farm have a delayed opening ?

Q: Who pays for the upkeep of the dinosaurs ? the grass cutting ? tree maintenance ?
A: The cafe ? the fishing permits ? the one concert a year at the NSC or the athletics ?


Remember, this is a massive and significant park area, under-used by the public and with little in the way of direct revenue streams.

By way of comparison, there is a small area of greenspace in Forest Hill. It is approximately the size of Crystal Palace Park car park.
The local residents have formed a committee to HELP in the upkeep and development of this small greenspace and it has more 'users' per hectare than CPP.
http://www.amgfriends.org.uk/
Take a look at the fundrasing and activities they do to maintain the green and encourage its use.

If the CPCA has 800 members, why don't they get off their backsides and do something productive for Crystal Palace Park ?

They are a PAYNE

[davegr]

I don't think the park is under used. I use the park every day and there are hundreds of dog walkers, joggers etc using the park. On sunny days it is packed.

I'm not saying it doesn't need some money spent on it, it's the ridiculously ambitious ideas that have been put suggested that need scaling back.

Plans to put in flower beds, greenhouses next to the Terraces just seem nuts. It's a great open space that is perfect for dog walkers, kids playing footie etc. Why change that?

[Duke of Clarence]

Lee & AliB - currently CPP makes £280,000 a year from various rents and events. This is just over half it's anual budget but the income from CPP raised revenue is not ringfenced and goes direct to Bromley central where it is redistributed. CPP has the potential to self fund were the revenue ringfenced and events expanded and not peppercorn priced.

I believe CPP is well used by the wider public.

"Table 4.12 below presents the total estimated
figures for general visits to the Park based on
extrapolation of the winter and summer data. This
shows there are estimated to be 1.68 million
general visitors per annum to the Park, excluding
visits for special events."

The LDA number of 1.68m does not inlcude those who come for special events so it would not be unreasonable to suggest CPP has over 2m visitors a year plus those who use the NSC. However what the LDA did when calculating visitor numbers for the Masterplan was to assume that 5% of users of the park would combine each trip to use the park's facilities, the LDA then detracted that assumed data. To further erode the visitor numbers the LDA removed an assumed number of NSC users from the figure to come up with greatly reduced visitor numbers of 1,337,000.

The baseline number of visitors to Crystal Palace
Park (excluding visitors to special events) is
1,680,000 per annum. This figure includes
regular users of the NSC. Therefore we assume
the baseline figure for general23 users of the Park
to be 1,407,00024 per annum. The projected
number of visitors to Crystal Palace Park per
annum will be a combination of general users of
the Park and visitors to the Park's facilities. Again
we have assumed that some general visitors to
the Park will link trips and have discounted the
base figure by 5% to reflect this, giving a figure
of 1,337,000.

The reduced figure inflates the predicted visitor numbers for the revamped theme park.

davegr you hit the nail on the head. In answer to Lee's question about whether there is anything I like about the Masterplan the answer is not a lot. CPP is in need of some care and attention but it does not need major surgery - especially at such extraordinary expense. Restoration of the Terraces, some toilets and a decent cafe would be great but no to the giant greenhouses with sunken garden on the Terraces. The digging over of one part of the park to be moved to another and the landfill around the basement of the NSC is just unecessary and the logic behind reducing carparking facilities for a revamped CPP with over 1m extra users is lost on me - it means the overspill car park proposed for the area adjacent to the bus station will be more of a permanent feature thus reducing the use of that area for other events.

And V you make good point re boats on the lake - CPP could make the most of it's fab setting and host more activities. This would have the added benefit of CPP reaping extra income whilst increasing amenities for public to enjoy - two birds one stone!

[Eagle]

I agree Dave. Crystal Palace has never been a flower bed park like Horniman Gardens.

Flower beds are not what the park is about.

Wild open spaces

[Eagle]

As usual His Eminence The Duke makes valid points.

This is a major asset . Why not a charge of 50p per park user. According to figures that would raise 3/4 a million per year.

[ALIB]

Some good points, and well made.

But the park is still not able to self-fund. Even with occasional special events.

I agree, not a lot needs doing to the Park, but the terraces at the very top (where the funfair is occasionaly sited) could benefit from some work. Parhaps enhancing to reflect the Palace that once stood there.

And for all the visitors to non-events, they contribute very little to Park maintenance by way of taxes. I would think a lot of users live mostly on the Bromley side (big assumption), but their contribution through Council tax is very small....(though not as small as my contribution, because I live in Sydenham )

I think the MasterPlan probably is too ambitious, and still doesn't appear to bring in additional revenue streams needed to maintain the park, especially with all the extra features proposed.

[downthehill]

But what does the annual budget of £560,000 (double the reported £280,000 from income) cover? Capital investment or simply operating costs i.e general maintenance costs ?

I'd be interested to know the source of these figures.

Personally I doubt £280,000, even if ring fenced, would cover a fraction of the capital costs required for basic renovations - to repair the terraces for example.

In 1999, the park was awarded £4.4m from the Heritage Lottery Fund to restore 40% of the landscape and infrastructure - £280,000 is just 7% of that - so a similar levee of expenditure today of £4.4 million would use up every penny of this revenue for 14 years, with nothing left over for anything else.

The cost of even a scaled down MP, limited to of basic renovation, could not be covered by this annual revenue- so where would capital expenditure come from ?

[downthehill]

If the CPCA has 800 members, why don't they get off their backsides and do something productive for Crystal Palace Park ?

I assume they believe that saving MOL from a sale is the most productive use of their energies.

Others in the community have taken a different course - like joining the Crystal Palace Park Community stakeholder groups which is one of the four specialist sub groups formed to explore managing the park under a community trust.

The remit includes exploring revenue sources.

Two of the 11 individuals in this group were also instrumental in "getting off backsides" by fostering an introduction between Bromley LB and the Eden Foundation (i.e those behind the Eden Project) which ultimately led the Eden Foundation to becoming part of the current Executive Management board.

details here:

http://cds.bromley.gov.uk/mgConvert2PDF.aspx?ID=10391
http://cds.bromley.gov.uk/documents/s10 ... mittee.pdf

[Duke of Clarence]

I agree Dave. Crystal Palace has never been a flower bed park like Horniman Gardens.

Flower beds are not what the park is about.

Wild open spaces

Hear, hear!

Some of the proposed pictures seem to be completely over the top. Greenhouses of the type illustrated will need enormous money spent on maintenance.

Davegr highlights another major flaw - how are the post surgery maintenance costs of CPP to be met? I have no idea what the numbers will be but meeting them relies on an entirely different sort of park use where visitors are expected to flash the cash and be frequent users. Parts of the park will only be open to those who can pay to play and if those attractions fail to pull in the visitors they need to meet costs what happens then?

More parkland sold for housing is my guess and I wonder if this is the reality of Paxton's legacy - never mind the the greenhouse on steroids the renegade gardener left CPP vulnerable to developers. When CPP is in dire straits history repeats itself and parkland is parcelled off to the highest bidder.

All the talk about budget restrictions glosses over the fact that the Masterplan was drawn up in 2005 way before the global markets toppled and funding was not the issue it is now. It was a time when Battersea and Dulwich Parks were enjoying significant public investment. Indeed the LDA spent £10m on the CPP Masterplan consutlation process. At the LDA presentations the public was given a choice of some wild and wonderful makeovers for the park but it was not made clear that the proposals could only go ahead were parts of the park sold to fund them.

So while financial restraints are a very real and pressing burden on the Masterplan today that was not the case when this plan was conceived. Bromley council and the LDA were unwilling to explore an alternative way forward for the park, instead they forged ahead with this ambitious proposal using taxpayers money to stand their ground without thinking this through. There is no road map for how the increased maintenance costs will be met nor are there any figures, not even LDA assumed ones, of what those costs will be.

Even if the land value rises and the protected £11m for housing revenue is reached the cost of implementing the Masterplan will be much higher than what was proposed in 2007. This will significantly reduce the benefit of the revenue from 1/11 to something much, much smaller. A drop in the Masterplan ocean.

As for the stakeholder group, lets wait and see, but two of the community groups holding ringfenced posts, the Park Working Group and the Crystal Palace Triangle Planning Group - anyone heard of them? - are ardent supporters of the Masterplan. It is unclear who those groups represent as neither has a mandate, elected reprentation or wider public presence.

What is clear is that out of the numerous local community groups that opposed the Masterplan Bromley did well to select individuals from the yes camp to hold two of three ringfenced posts. Another stitch up!

[downthehill]

As for the stakeholder group, lets wait and see, but two of the community groups holding ringfenced posts, the Park Working Group and the Crystal Palace Triangle Planning Group - anyone heard of them? - are ardent supporters of the Masterplan. It is unclear who those groups represent as neither has a mandate, elected reprentation or wider public presence

More partial suggestions. Quelle surprise. Since The Duke chooses to (mis)represent the position of a local group and raise the make up and function of the Park Community stakeholder Group I will say this once for the benefit of other readers , since I am a member of the Crystal Palace Triangle Planning Group.

The Crystal Palace Triangle Planning Group's position on the MP is not as "ardent supporters". The group's position, as the Duke knows very well since the Duke was part of the group at the time when the Duke took an active hand in approving the following statements when the MP was approved is this

"CPTPG fully supports the masterplan's goal of creating a vibrant, revitalised park which serves the needs of the community. It is clear that a complete funding solution for all of the improvements will still need to be found but on balance we believe that funding from limited residential development is acceptable provided that the funding raised is guaranteed to be used for the purposes of achieving the overall aims of the masterplan. We also hope the masterplan finally ends further speculative and unwelcome attempts at commercial exploitation of the topsite. The CPTPG is fully committed to working in partnership with all local stake holders, Bromley Council and the LDA to reach a pragmatic solution to the more controversial aspects of the plan and to ensure that each stage of its implementation complements the wider regeneration and social and economic interests of Upper Norwood."

The postion is , and always has been, one of cautious, but positive, engagement on the basis that key decision makers like Bromley and the LDA are more likely to be responsive to reasonable and rationally expressed views over the park than all out attack , no matter how noble the cause.

The Duke has obviously had a change of mind since then (23 July 2010) which is his/her perogative but please Duke, don't (mis)represent what the CPTPG believes - you are not a spokesperson for the group and what you say is inaccurate.

The group is very far from being pro commercial exploitation of the park - see http://www.newsshopper.co.uk/news/81284 ... velopment/. It's true the group is relatively unknown (although supporter of the cimema campaign will know us as we have worked closely with the PPC on planning issues over 25 Church road and organsied last summer protest in the park against KICC). But it's hardly surprising though that we are not as well knwon as some, more voluable, local groups as CPTPG has only being going three years or so it's inevitable that it is less well known, or perhaps visible, as groups like CPCA which has been going for 40 years).

As for the Park Community stakeholder group -

Members of the stakeholder group are not there to promote their individual (nor indeed any local groups) view on the park but to act collectively and report to the Executive management board through the chairman of stakeholder group (who is not a member of CPTPG).

There are 11 members, working togther and sharing different views and opinions quite amicably.

The three (out of 11) places on the Community Stakeholder group were not ringfenced for a group. They were ringfenced for individaul applicants (i.e a living persons, not a group) who also happened to be members of a local community group.

They went through the same application, interview and selection process as the other 8 applicants and the application process was open to all.

I believe members of the CPCA applied, but were unsucessful (something which was perhaps un surprising given that they questioned the validity of the entire process) http://www.cpca.org.uk/newsletters/CPCA ... letter.pdf

The recruitments process was also outsourced to Community Links and so I assume it was they, not Bromley , which made recommendataions as to which of the applicants had the best skills to fulfill the roles being recruited for.

[Eagle]

Wow these posts get longer and longer.

Down The Hill seems to questioning the integrity of a Duke of The Realm.

I must admit to being a trifle confused but that is nothing new.

I would imagine nothing can be done at this stage to stop the building on the park. Very sad but let us hope the promise that this is not the thin end of the wedge is correct.

[downthehill]

I'm not questioning integrity. I'll leave others to do that.

I am simply pointing out that the Duke knows full well the CPTPG's position on the park because he/she was both a party to , read and approved the groups public statment from July 2010 and I'm disappointed that he/she chooses to set out the groups position in a partial and incomplete way - so I have set the record straight with what we actually said and believe.

But since the Duke is obviously so expert in all matters over the park I wonder if he/she would please point , with precisions, to which part of the MP or other published documents he/she relies on to state

Parts of the park will only be open to those who can pay to play and if those attractions fail to pull in the visitors they need to meet costs what happens then?

What attractions are these ? Which of them would required paid entry ?

[Eagle]

DTH

Thanks for the explanation. Puzzled why you put he /she . If she would be Duchess

[downthehill]

Because forums are anonymous so I dont wish to be accused of breaching anonymity, even though I know the Duke so I left it ambiguous