CRYSTAL PALACE PLANS TO BE UNVEILED
Re: CRYSTAL PALACE PLANS TO BE UNVEILED
Wot downthehill said. Darn right.
-
downthehill
- Posts: 53
- Joined: 2 Oct 2009 09:47
- Location: Gipsy Hill
Re: CRYSTAL PALACE PLANS TO BE UNVEILED
Sorry Stuart I should have included the explanatory note below
It should be noted that the area on the map is not a planning application area or a proposed construction area. It is an area which the council has agreed that it will not discuss development proposals with third parties without the express agreement of ZhongRong Group. This does not affect existing arrangements already in place, with the operators of the transmitter for instance, who have a lease. It does commit the council not to discuss these areas of land, where a third party has a leasehold interest, with others should the existing arrangement stop.
The Community Stakeholder Group website is good source of info about where things are right now
http://www.crystalpalacepark.org.uk/category/news/
[ Post made via Mobile Device ]
It should be noted that the area on the map is not a planning application area or a proposed construction area. It is an area which the council has agreed that it will not discuss development proposals with third parties without the express agreement of ZhongRong Group. This does not affect existing arrangements already in place, with the operators of the transmitter for instance, who have a lease. It does commit the council not to discuss these areas of land, where a third party has a leasehold interest, with others should the existing arrangement stop.
The Community Stakeholder Group website is good source of info about where things are right now
http://www.crystalpalacepark.org.uk/category/news/
[ Post made via Mobile Device ]
Re: CRYSTAL PALACE PLANS TO BE UNVEILED
I agree dickp, that post by downthehill was one of the best written on this forum in ages. I totally agree about the cpca who were a disgrace.
[ Post made via Mobile Device ]
[ Post made via Mobile Device ]
-
downthehill
- Posts: 53
- Joined: 2 Oct 2009 09:47
- Location: Gipsy Hill
Re: CRYSTAL PALACE PLANS TO BE UNVEILED
Most kind. This is such a civilised forum.
Re the consultation one thing for me is exploring in detail what would actually be hosted in the venue and what the infrastructure need will be
Given the size, cost and intended purposes I think its worth looking for comparibles and how the surrounding infrastructure is equipped to cope.
So far, with Earls Court , Olympia going the nearest London comparitor I can think of is Excel. Which.has close similarities but much better infrastructure
ExCeL London is a £500 million, international venue offering an incredible 100,000m2 of flexible event space, including London’s first-ever International Convention Centre (ICC London ExCeL).
The ZR CP has a similar budget and I think is about 90,000 m2
ICC London ExCeL includes the UK’s largest auditorium (up to 5,000), London’s largest banqueting hall (3,000 guests) and a stunning, multi-function conference suite with fabulous reception and registration areas (2,500 delegates).
The ZR CP prospectus refers to conferences and exhibition events so I presume would follow a similar model, albeit numbers are sketchy
The ICC is seamlessly integrated with ExCeL London’s existing meeting and exhibition space, including fully appointed meeting rooms, a self-contained conference facility and expansive Event Halls, ideal for large-scale events.
As above - my guess is a similar model at the ZR CP
ExCeL London has 6 onsite hotels, ranging from luxury to budget, offering 1,400 rooms between them. In addition, there are over 10,000 hotel rooms within 20 minutes of ExCeL London.
Well we know the plan us for .the ZR CP to have a 6* hotel of unknown size but is clearly aimed at high rollers coming on for international trade fairs. But where would everyone else stay. I can't imagine they would be attracted by the Queens hotel or the B&Bs sprinkled around the Park. Which means staying further away, which means traffic , unless the plan is to encourage them to stay in the Croydon hotels and commute by train
The venue boasts excellent transpuort links for both national and international visitors with 3 onsite DLR (Docklands Light Railway) stations, easy access to London Underground, onsite parking for 3,700 cars and London City Airport just 5-minutes away.
And here's the rub. If Excel, with much better public transport links still needs a 3700 car park that suggest to me that the ZR CP, mentioned, 3000 car car park would be heavily used. 3000 cars is the size of the Glades car park . Which is a lot of cars and whilst this isn't a retail mall , the forecast visitor number of 3 million a year are at similar levels - so s lot of cars even.if they stay longer. CP does have a high PTAL rating but that included the impact of the local bus network which I would suggest is way down the list of preffered transport choice of you are flying in to an international exhibiion, conference or trade fair ?
The venue is positioned in the heart of London’s ‘events district’, with great hotels, shops, bars and restaurants all ideally located within close proximity of Canary Wharf, The O2 and the Olympic Park.
Some similarities if the park is rejuvinated but , as excellent as they are, I don't see the bars and restaurants on the triangle as bring attractive to the clientele of s 6* hotel , anf prrsumably the plan.is to capture the audience so the scheme will include some on site food and beverage and retail so the ZR VP gets revenue from commercial leases from such tenants and concessions
This content has been supplied by ExCeL London apart from my bits which are copyright of DTH productions
!
[ Post made via Mobile Device ]
Re the consultation one thing for me is exploring in detail what would actually be hosted in the venue and what the infrastructure need will be
Given the size, cost and intended purposes I think its worth looking for comparibles and how the surrounding infrastructure is equipped to cope.
So far, with Earls Court , Olympia going the nearest London comparitor I can think of is Excel. Which.has close similarities but much better infrastructure
ExCeL London is a £500 million, international venue offering an incredible 100,000m2 of flexible event space, including London’s first-ever International Convention Centre (ICC London ExCeL).
The ZR CP has a similar budget and I think is about 90,000 m2
ICC London ExCeL includes the UK’s largest auditorium (up to 5,000), London’s largest banqueting hall (3,000 guests) and a stunning, multi-function conference suite with fabulous reception and registration areas (2,500 delegates).
The ZR CP prospectus refers to conferences and exhibition events so I presume would follow a similar model, albeit numbers are sketchy
The ICC is seamlessly integrated with ExCeL London’s existing meeting and exhibition space, including fully appointed meeting rooms, a self-contained conference facility and expansive Event Halls, ideal for large-scale events.
As above - my guess is a similar model at the ZR CP
ExCeL London has 6 onsite hotels, ranging from luxury to budget, offering 1,400 rooms between them. In addition, there are over 10,000 hotel rooms within 20 minutes of ExCeL London.
Well we know the plan us for .the ZR CP to have a 6* hotel of unknown size but is clearly aimed at high rollers coming on for international trade fairs. But where would everyone else stay. I can't imagine they would be attracted by the Queens hotel or the B&Bs sprinkled around the Park. Which means staying further away, which means traffic , unless the plan is to encourage them to stay in the Croydon hotels and commute by train
The venue boasts excellent transpuort links for both national and international visitors with 3 onsite DLR (Docklands Light Railway) stations, easy access to London Underground, onsite parking for 3,700 cars and London City Airport just 5-minutes away.
And here's the rub. If Excel, with much better public transport links still needs a 3700 car park that suggest to me that the ZR CP, mentioned, 3000 car car park would be heavily used. 3000 cars is the size of the Glades car park . Which is a lot of cars and whilst this isn't a retail mall , the forecast visitor number of 3 million a year are at similar levels - so s lot of cars even.if they stay longer. CP does have a high PTAL rating but that included the impact of the local bus network which I would suggest is way down the list of preffered transport choice of you are flying in to an international exhibiion, conference or trade fair ?
The venue is positioned in the heart of London’s ‘events district’, with great hotels, shops, bars and restaurants all ideally located within close proximity of Canary Wharf, The O2 and the Olympic Park.
Some similarities if the park is rejuvinated but , as excellent as they are, I don't see the bars and restaurants on the triangle as bring attractive to the clientele of s 6* hotel , anf prrsumably the plan.is to capture the audience so the scheme will include some on site food and beverage and retail so the ZR VP gets revenue from commercial leases from such tenants and concessions
This content has been supplied by ExCeL London apart from my bits which are copyright of DTH productions
!
[ Post made via Mobile Device ]
Re: CRYSTAL PALACE PLANS TO BE UNVEILED
Agree
Very informative post - it reinforces my belief that the exhibition aspect of the development would be hugely overblown for the projected demand.
I think there is a huge risk that the developer would focus their energy on the very vague commercial and hospitality aspects .
I am not remotely inspired by the replica CP - I would much prefer an original building in the same spirit which could be a real opportunity .
Maybe a competition scenario as per the outstanding De la Warr pavilion ? In any event I see no reason to support the proposed development as it stands . Everything to lose and a very uncertain benefit .
Good evening
Nigel
[ Post made via Mobile Device ]
Very informative post - it reinforces my belief that the exhibition aspect of the development would be hugely overblown for the projected demand.
I think there is a huge risk that the developer would focus their energy on the very vague commercial and hospitality aspects .
I am not remotely inspired by the replica CP - I would much prefer an original building in the same spirit which could be a real opportunity .
Maybe a competition scenario as per the outstanding De la Warr pavilion ? In any event I see no reason to support the proposed development as it stands . Everything to lose and a very uncertain benefit .
Good evening
Nigel
[ Post made via Mobile Device ]
-
downthehill
- Posts: 53
- Joined: 2 Oct 2009 09:47
- Location: Gipsy Hill
Re: CRYSTAL PALACE PLANS TO BE UNVEILED
The Community Stakeholder Group
http://www.crystalpalacepark.org.uk/
have written an open letter to Mr Ni of Zhongrong Holdings in response to his to the community (details below)
The CSG is also preparing an issues identifier in an effort to capture local views, opinions and comments (pro. In the middle and against) and the comments on this forum have been very helpful. That process is continuing but if anyone wishes to contact the CSG direct their details are above. I would recommend their e bulletins as a useful source of news on this plan
An open letter to The Crystal Palace Community 22 October 2013
I am pleased that there has been positive feedback following the launch of our plans to rebuild Crystal Palace and to restore the Park. It is encouraging that people are excited about the potential of the scheme and the benefits it can bring to the local area.
Equally I am well aware that many of you want to know more details about the project and, in particular, to understand how you can both comment on the plans for new Crystal Palace and play an active part in contributing your ideas to it. Some people will of course have concerns and we are taking note of them. We want to listen and address them as best we can.
I want to reassure everyone that a programme of community engagement will be starting later this autumn. The planning is underway for this and we will set out the details as soon as we can in the coming weeks. As I said on the day of the launch the views of local people are important to me and I want to hear what you think. We have published the outline of the scheme but I recognise the desire for more information. Now Bromley Council has entered into an exclusivity agreement we can work up the proposals in more detail.
I also want to emphasise one final point. The Crystal Palace holds a special place in the history of your country and in the heart of the local community. It was a symbol of imagination, pride and national confidence. That brings a special responsibility for me and for my company to listen and to learn from local residents as we seek to shape the next chapter of this special building. We will take that responsibility very seriously.
Mr Ni Zhaoxing Chairman of ZhongRong Group
Community Stakeholder Group responds to Mr. Ni Zhaoxing’s “Open letter to The Crystal Palace Community”
An open letter to Mr. Ni Zhaoxing, Chairman of ZhongRong Group
Dear Mr. Ni Zhaoxing,
We appreciate your interest in our park and the possibility of significant investment in its regeneration. The biggest concern is that, in reality, not enough is known at present about the detail of your proposition. We have over many years sought to protect the park from overtly commercial development taking up too much green space and also to try and find a way to improve its sad state of repair. We see that your scheme may provide a route to fulfilling both these aims.
We also appreciate your comments about community engagement and view this as a critical step to improve understanding and to allow us to participate in the development of the detail of the scheme. As your brochure states, a re-imagined Crystal Palace “must be owned and loved by the local community”.
It is true that the Crystal Palace - both in Hyde Park and then on Sydenham Hill - held a special place in the history of the UK and, indeed, was a major influence on subsequent architectural practice around the world. It was at the cutting edge of innovation and technology and, almost as much as the Great Exhibition of 1851 (which it was originally built to house), epitomised the best of British endeavour. We are now left with a park that provides much needed open space in a heavily populated urban environment but does need significant renovation.
Time has moved on and, although there are some people who would like to see the fantasy return, we should really be looking forward to a new world with new needs and aspirations. In some ways this was foreseen by the (often forgotten) fact that television was born at Crystal Palace, a hint of the phenomenal development of electronic technology to come.
The responsibility in shaping this proposition in the 21st century, you rightly say, is a serious matter and we want to look forward to a way of honouring the Paxton legacy. But this should be by an innovative and optimised use of space while still being able to incorporate much of what you suggested. This appears to have a strong cultural and community leaning but also has enough of a commercial element to provide a sustainable legacy – the balance is crucial.
One important concern of ours is that, while your proposition develops into a full-blown planning application, the many smaller projects - not least the important finance of £7.5 million from the HLF (and others) - will cease in anticipation of the new investment. Efforts to regenerate the park will once again languish and another period of uncertainty will afflict the many participants in these ventures.
We look forward to your promised engagement with the community and hope the dialogue begins as soon as possible.
Yours sincerely,
Martin Tempia Chair of Crystal Palace Park Community Stakeholder Group Crystal Palace Park Management Board
[ Post made via Mobile Device ]
http://www.crystalpalacepark.org.uk/
have written an open letter to Mr Ni of Zhongrong Holdings in response to his to the community (details below)
The CSG is also preparing an issues identifier in an effort to capture local views, opinions and comments (pro. In the middle and against) and the comments on this forum have been very helpful. That process is continuing but if anyone wishes to contact the CSG direct their details are above. I would recommend their e bulletins as a useful source of news on this plan
An open letter to The Crystal Palace Community 22 October 2013
I am pleased that there has been positive feedback following the launch of our plans to rebuild Crystal Palace and to restore the Park. It is encouraging that people are excited about the potential of the scheme and the benefits it can bring to the local area.
Equally I am well aware that many of you want to know more details about the project and, in particular, to understand how you can both comment on the plans for new Crystal Palace and play an active part in contributing your ideas to it. Some people will of course have concerns and we are taking note of them. We want to listen and address them as best we can.
I want to reassure everyone that a programme of community engagement will be starting later this autumn. The planning is underway for this and we will set out the details as soon as we can in the coming weeks. As I said on the day of the launch the views of local people are important to me and I want to hear what you think. We have published the outline of the scheme but I recognise the desire for more information. Now Bromley Council has entered into an exclusivity agreement we can work up the proposals in more detail.
I also want to emphasise one final point. The Crystal Palace holds a special place in the history of your country and in the heart of the local community. It was a symbol of imagination, pride and national confidence. That brings a special responsibility for me and for my company to listen and to learn from local residents as we seek to shape the next chapter of this special building. We will take that responsibility very seriously.
Mr Ni Zhaoxing Chairman of ZhongRong Group
Community Stakeholder Group responds to Mr. Ni Zhaoxing’s “Open letter to The Crystal Palace Community”
An open letter to Mr. Ni Zhaoxing, Chairman of ZhongRong Group
Dear Mr. Ni Zhaoxing,
We appreciate your interest in our park and the possibility of significant investment in its regeneration. The biggest concern is that, in reality, not enough is known at present about the detail of your proposition. We have over many years sought to protect the park from overtly commercial development taking up too much green space and also to try and find a way to improve its sad state of repair. We see that your scheme may provide a route to fulfilling both these aims.
We also appreciate your comments about community engagement and view this as a critical step to improve understanding and to allow us to participate in the development of the detail of the scheme. As your brochure states, a re-imagined Crystal Palace “must be owned and loved by the local community”.
It is true that the Crystal Palace - both in Hyde Park and then on Sydenham Hill - held a special place in the history of the UK and, indeed, was a major influence on subsequent architectural practice around the world. It was at the cutting edge of innovation and technology and, almost as much as the Great Exhibition of 1851 (which it was originally built to house), epitomised the best of British endeavour. We are now left with a park that provides much needed open space in a heavily populated urban environment but does need significant renovation.
Time has moved on and, although there are some people who would like to see the fantasy return, we should really be looking forward to a new world with new needs and aspirations. In some ways this was foreseen by the (often forgotten) fact that television was born at Crystal Palace, a hint of the phenomenal development of electronic technology to come.
The responsibility in shaping this proposition in the 21st century, you rightly say, is a serious matter and we want to look forward to a way of honouring the Paxton legacy. But this should be by an innovative and optimised use of space while still being able to incorporate much of what you suggested. This appears to have a strong cultural and community leaning but also has enough of a commercial element to provide a sustainable legacy – the balance is crucial.
One important concern of ours is that, while your proposition develops into a full-blown planning application, the many smaller projects - not least the important finance of £7.5 million from the HLF (and others) - will cease in anticipation of the new investment. Efforts to regenerate the park will once again languish and another period of uncertainty will afflict the many participants in these ventures.
We look forward to your promised engagement with the community and hope the dialogue begins as soon as possible.
Yours sincerely,
Martin Tempia Chair of Crystal Palace Park Community Stakeholder Group Crystal Palace Park Management Board
[ Post made via Mobile Device ]
-
downthehill
- Posts: 53
- Joined: 2 Oct 2009 09:47
- Location: Gipsy Hill
Re: CRYSTAL PALACE PLANS TO BE UNVEILED
Some London Assembly Members asked the Mayor of London questions about the proposals to rebuilt the Crystal Palace.
Answers below
Crystal Palace - planning decision Question No: 2013/3415 Darren Johnson (Green) Given that you have given your public backing to the plans to rebuild the Crystal Palace, who would determine the planning application? Written response from the Mayor I have delegated consideration of the planning application to Sir Edward Lister, my Chief of Staff and Deputy Mayor for Planning.
Crystal Palace - community involvement to date Question No: 2013/3416 Darren Johnson (Green) What contact did you or the rest of the GLA had with local community and business organisations regarding the plans to rebuild the Crystal Palace prior to your announcement on the 3rd October? Please list organisations and dates. Written response from the Mayor My officers continue to hold informal meetings with a number of representatives of the Crystal Palace community, as well as participating in Bromley’s Executive Group of the Crystal Palace Park Management Board, which includes community representatives.
On 2 October the Board received the presentation from Arup on Mr Ni’s proposals, which also formed the basis of the press launch the following day.
I have delegated consideration of the planning application to Sir Edward Lister, my Chief of Staff and Deputy Mayor for Planning.
Crystal Palace - assessments of impact Question No: 2013/3417 Darren Johnson (Green) What assessments had you undertaken, prior to your announcement on the 3rd October, of the impact of the plans to rebuild the Crystal Palace on: (a) the amenity of the park for local residents and visitors (b) existing local infrastructure, including the transport network (c) the local economy (d) the development needs of the local area? Written response from the Mayor Through our work on the Masterplan for Crystal Palace Park and the extensive community involvement in that project, I am well versed on the issues listed here, not least the estimated costs of upwards of £80 million to implement the Masterplan.
GLA officers have been working with officers from the London Borough of Bromley and Arup (as Mr Ni’s representatives) since May to support the development of Mr Ni’s proposals for the reconstruction of the Crystal Palace. Mr Ni has appointed Arup to develop an approach to the planning application, public engagement and the ‘content’ proposition for the Palace. This is consolidated into a prospectus which was made public on the day of the launch in hard copy and on a website.
All parties acknowledged on 3 October that there’s a long way to go to realise Mr Ni’s ambition, but I do welcome the proposition and believe it marks an exciting new chapter for the Park and the area
Crystal Palace - future community involvement Question No: 2013/3418 Darren Johnson (Green) What is your strategy for community engagement and what is the schedule for consultation engagements on the plans to rebuild the Crystal Palace? Written response from the Mayor The project is in its early stages and many of the details and design propositions still need to be worked out with local communities and other stakeholders but I expect Mr Ni’s team to begin a public engagement process well in advance of Christmas. We have suggested this is modelled on the engagement process for the Masterplan (which has received very positive feedback).
In addition to ongoing dialogue over the coming year, there will also be a formal consultation as part of the planning application process
Crystal Palace - advisory board Question No: 2013/3419 Darren Johnson (Green) Will you create places on the advisory board for local community and business representatives? Written response from the Mayor In pulling together the Advisory Board, my intention is to bring together expertise in the fields of design and cultural attractions to help the Leader of the London Borough of Bromley and myself support and advise Mr Ni in the development of the proposal. The Advisory Board will not be decision making and is intended to sit alongside and often interface with a comprehensive engagement strategy which will need to fully involve the local community and business representatives. For this reason, I do not intend to involve these groups in the Advisory Board.
Crystal Palace - neighbourhood plan Question No: 2013/3420 Darren Johnson (Green) Will you work with the London Boroughs of Bromley, Croydon, Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham to fund an evidence base and a neighbourhood planning exercise to identify the potential impact, problems and solutions associated with the plans to rebuild the Crystal Palace? Written response from the Mayor Given the political landscape of the area surrounding the Crystal Palace site, together with the London Borough of Bromley, I have initiated cross boundary discussions with the five boroughs mentioned. It is my intention to support this with detailed work that considers the impact and opportunity created by the development for the area irrespective of political boundaries. This work has been initiated but is yet to be scoped in detail.
I have delegated consideration of the planning application to Sir Edward Lister, my Chief of Staff and Deputy Mayor for Planning.
Crystal Palace - timetable Question No: 2013/3421 Darren Johnson (Green) Please give as much detail as possible about your timetable for developing the plans to rebuild the Crystal Palace. Written response from the Mayor The proposals are at a very early stage and a detailed programme will be developed over coming months and will rely on a range of factors. Nevertheless, the investor Mr Ni, and his team propose a full engagement process and a design competition will start before Christmas. Bromley Executive agreed on 16 October to enter into an exclusivity agreement with Mr Ni. Mr Ni’s team estimates that a planning application will be submitted in the autumn of 2014, with which means construction could start in winter 2015 and The Crystal Palace could open in 2018.
Crystal Palace Reconstruction & Tram Extension Question No: 2013/3568 Steve O'Connell (Conservative) What impact will the proposed development/reconstruction of Crystal Palace have on the business case and viability for the Crystal Palace tram extension? Written response from the Mayor Officers are drafting a response which will be sent shortly. [Tom – I will circulate this when it is received]
Crystal Palace Park Question No: 2013/3873 Valerie Shawcross (Labour) Please outline what involvement Transport for London and Network Rail have had so, in the proposals to rebuild the Crystal Palace, with regard to public transport capacity in the area. Written response from the Mayor My officers have briefed TfL colleagues on the proposals to rebuild the Crystal Palace.
Crystal Palace Park 2 Question No: 2013/3874 Valerie Shawcross (Labour) Please indicate how Transport for London and Network Rail will be engaged in the discussions regarding the proposals to rebuild the Crystal Palace. Written response from the Mayor A meeting is in the diary between Transport for London and Mr Ni’s team to scope out the work required to assess and develop mitigations for any transport impact of the proposals. Network Rail will then be pulled in to this impact assessment work.
Crystal Palace Park Question No: 2013/3918 Fiona Twycross (Labour) Will the Mayor make sure that despite his own personal publically stated enthusiasm for the plans to build of a replica of Crystal Palace in Crystal Palace Park, residents and local businesses are consulted extensively on the plans and will he provide assurances that their views will be fully taken in to account in any final decision on whether the project should go ahead in the form proposed? Written response from the Mayor The project is in its early stages and many of the details and design propositions still need to be worked out with local communities and other stakeholders but I expect Mr Ni’s team to begin a public engagement process well in advance of Christmas. We have suggested this is modelled on the engagement process for the Masterplan (which has received very positive feedback).
In addition to on-going dialogue over the coming year, there will also be a formal consultation as part of the planning applicatioN process
[ Post made via Mobile Device ]
Answers below
Crystal Palace - planning decision Question No: 2013/3415 Darren Johnson (Green) Given that you have given your public backing to the plans to rebuild the Crystal Palace, who would determine the planning application? Written response from the Mayor I have delegated consideration of the planning application to Sir Edward Lister, my Chief of Staff and Deputy Mayor for Planning.
Crystal Palace - community involvement to date Question No: 2013/3416 Darren Johnson (Green) What contact did you or the rest of the GLA had with local community and business organisations regarding the plans to rebuild the Crystal Palace prior to your announcement on the 3rd October? Please list organisations and dates. Written response from the Mayor My officers continue to hold informal meetings with a number of representatives of the Crystal Palace community, as well as participating in Bromley’s Executive Group of the Crystal Palace Park Management Board, which includes community representatives.
On 2 October the Board received the presentation from Arup on Mr Ni’s proposals, which also formed the basis of the press launch the following day.
I have delegated consideration of the planning application to Sir Edward Lister, my Chief of Staff and Deputy Mayor for Planning.
Crystal Palace - assessments of impact Question No: 2013/3417 Darren Johnson (Green) What assessments had you undertaken, prior to your announcement on the 3rd October, of the impact of the plans to rebuild the Crystal Palace on: (a) the amenity of the park for local residents and visitors (b) existing local infrastructure, including the transport network (c) the local economy (d) the development needs of the local area? Written response from the Mayor Through our work on the Masterplan for Crystal Palace Park and the extensive community involvement in that project, I am well versed on the issues listed here, not least the estimated costs of upwards of £80 million to implement the Masterplan.
GLA officers have been working with officers from the London Borough of Bromley and Arup (as Mr Ni’s representatives) since May to support the development of Mr Ni’s proposals for the reconstruction of the Crystal Palace. Mr Ni has appointed Arup to develop an approach to the planning application, public engagement and the ‘content’ proposition for the Palace. This is consolidated into a prospectus which was made public on the day of the launch in hard copy and on a website.
All parties acknowledged on 3 October that there’s a long way to go to realise Mr Ni’s ambition, but I do welcome the proposition and believe it marks an exciting new chapter for the Park and the area
Crystal Palace - future community involvement Question No: 2013/3418 Darren Johnson (Green) What is your strategy for community engagement and what is the schedule for consultation engagements on the plans to rebuild the Crystal Palace? Written response from the Mayor The project is in its early stages and many of the details and design propositions still need to be worked out with local communities and other stakeholders but I expect Mr Ni’s team to begin a public engagement process well in advance of Christmas. We have suggested this is modelled on the engagement process for the Masterplan (which has received very positive feedback).
In addition to ongoing dialogue over the coming year, there will also be a formal consultation as part of the planning application process
Crystal Palace - advisory board Question No: 2013/3419 Darren Johnson (Green) Will you create places on the advisory board for local community and business representatives? Written response from the Mayor In pulling together the Advisory Board, my intention is to bring together expertise in the fields of design and cultural attractions to help the Leader of the London Borough of Bromley and myself support and advise Mr Ni in the development of the proposal. The Advisory Board will not be decision making and is intended to sit alongside and often interface with a comprehensive engagement strategy which will need to fully involve the local community and business representatives. For this reason, I do not intend to involve these groups in the Advisory Board.
Crystal Palace - neighbourhood plan Question No: 2013/3420 Darren Johnson (Green) Will you work with the London Boroughs of Bromley, Croydon, Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham to fund an evidence base and a neighbourhood planning exercise to identify the potential impact, problems and solutions associated with the plans to rebuild the Crystal Palace? Written response from the Mayor Given the political landscape of the area surrounding the Crystal Palace site, together with the London Borough of Bromley, I have initiated cross boundary discussions with the five boroughs mentioned. It is my intention to support this with detailed work that considers the impact and opportunity created by the development for the area irrespective of political boundaries. This work has been initiated but is yet to be scoped in detail.
I have delegated consideration of the planning application to Sir Edward Lister, my Chief of Staff and Deputy Mayor for Planning.
Crystal Palace - timetable Question No: 2013/3421 Darren Johnson (Green) Please give as much detail as possible about your timetable for developing the plans to rebuild the Crystal Palace. Written response from the Mayor The proposals are at a very early stage and a detailed programme will be developed over coming months and will rely on a range of factors. Nevertheless, the investor Mr Ni, and his team propose a full engagement process and a design competition will start before Christmas. Bromley Executive agreed on 16 October to enter into an exclusivity agreement with Mr Ni. Mr Ni’s team estimates that a planning application will be submitted in the autumn of 2014, with which means construction could start in winter 2015 and The Crystal Palace could open in 2018.
Crystal Palace Reconstruction & Tram Extension Question No: 2013/3568 Steve O'Connell (Conservative) What impact will the proposed development/reconstruction of Crystal Palace have on the business case and viability for the Crystal Palace tram extension? Written response from the Mayor Officers are drafting a response which will be sent shortly. [Tom – I will circulate this when it is received]
Crystal Palace Park Question No: 2013/3873 Valerie Shawcross (Labour) Please outline what involvement Transport for London and Network Rail have had so, in the proposals to rebuild the Crystal Palace, with regard to public transport capacity in the area. Written response from the Mayor My officers have briefed TfL colleagues on the proposals to rebuild the Crystal Palace.
Crystal Palace Park 2 Question No: 2013/3874 Valerie Shawcross (Labour) Please indicate how Transport for London and Network Rail will be engaged in the discussions regarding the proposals to rebuild the Crystal Palace. Written response from the Mayor A meeting is in the diary between Transport for London and Mr Ni’s team to scope out the work required to assess and develop mitigations for any transport impact of the proposals. Network Rail will then be pulled in to this impact assessment work.
Crystal Palace Park Question No: 2013/3918 Fiona Twycross (Labour) Will the Mayor make sure that despite his own personal publically stated enthusiasm for the plans to build of a replica of Crystal Palace in Crystal Palace Park, residents and local businesses are consulted extensively on the plans and will he provide assurances that their views will be fully taken in to account in any final decision on whether the project should go ahead in the form proposed? Written response from the Mayor The project is in its early stages and many of the details and design propositions still need to be worked out with local communities and other stakeholders but I expect Mr Ni’s team to begin a public engagement process well in advance of Christmas. We have suggested this is modelled on the engagement process for the Masterplan (which has received very positive feedback).
In addition to on-going dialogue over the coming year, there will also be a formal consultation as part of the planning applicatioN process
[ Post made via Mobile Device ]
Re: CRYSTAL PALACE PLANS TO BE UNVEILED
Parliamentary 'debate' on the Crystal Palace:
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/? ... 176#g894.2
The three questions Jim Dowd asked to the minister at the end of his speech:
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/? ... 176#g894.2
The three questions Jim Dowd asked to the minister at the end of his speech:
Selected quotes from the response from the Minister (Nicholas Boles):Jim Dowd wrote: In view of the likely scale of this development—I know that the design competition is still to be decided—how can the London borough of Bromley decide on a planning application which will clearly be in breach of the 1990 Act? Surely the Act would need to be amended, abolished or repealed before the council would be able to consider such an application. It could not possibly give planning approval to something that clearly breaks the law.
Will the Government underwrite a full consultation with all local groups, citizens and neighbouring local authorities to ensure that all voices are heard so that we can make the most informed decision about this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity?
This is a major departure from any previous planning guidelines or outlines and from the master plan for the park, so can the Minister assure me that if it were to move through all its stages and be approved by the London borough of Bromley, the Government would call it in for further inquiry and deliberation?
Nicholas Boles wrote:We have made it very clear to the Mayor of London and the London borough of Bromley that we are happy to work with them to try to resolve those legislative issues through whatever means necessary, although we hope that what they require of this House will be minimal. We remain ready to do that. It is sometimes possible to give planning permission subject to conditions, but I agree that it is unusual and perhaps unprecedented to give planning permission when one of the conditions is a change in the law. I would imagine that he is probably right that any necessary changes to legislation would need to be made in parallel with consideration of the planning application. As he points out, however, these are early days. We have not even seen an outline planning application, so we do not necessarily need to know right now how we will jump that hurdle if we get that far.
Government policy is very clear that developments of any kind must be sustainable and one of the ways in which this scheme must be sustainable is by ensuring that the transport infrastructure is able to support the level of activity and movement generated. A development on this scale will have a dramatic effect on the transport infrastructure .... That will be an incredibly important part of any planning application and of the consultation to which we have just referred.
Re: CRYSTAL PALACE PLANS TO BE UNVEILED
Summary post from GipsyHill on VN:
What has not been clearly demonstrated is the “need” for the scale of this size commercial development.
Very useful comparison has been made to Battersea Park in the MasterPlan. it shows a success story in rejuvenating park visitor numbers and an inner London park. And they did this without the need to sell and build overup to 13.5 acres of their parkland for a colossal commercial mass public events centre, yet they have increased their estimated visitor numbers by 2m additional visitors pa, from 3m visitors pa, to 5m visitor pa using £7.5m HLF. The same number of “additional” visitors pa that Arup are now seeking.
Master Plan: Outline Business Case (Pg 27 and 40), http://www.crystalpalacecampaign.org/Ma ... s_Case.pdf
• Battersea Park is an 80 hectare green space situated in Wandsworth. The park is home to three Victorian gardens, a small zoo, a boating lake, a bandstand and several all-weather outdoor sporting facilities including tennis courts, a running track and football pitches. Battersea received £7.5million HLF between 2002-04. In the 12 months before they received HLF monies they had 3,000,000 visitors. In the last 12 months it was estimated Battersea Park had visitor numbers of 5,000,000
• Battersea Park has a large events arena with capacity varying according to layout. The events arena has indoor facilities that cater for 1,000 - 2,000 visitors per event and outdoor facilities that cater for between 6,000 - 30,000 visitors per concert.
Plus, Battersea Park now has very successful “exhibition” space for 4,000 visitor capacity in multipurpose indoor event and exhibition capacity using an event company (in a temporary structure) from http://www.batterseaevolution.co.uk/about so I assume could be ancillary to the use of MOL. It has a Zoo and larger outdoor event spaces programme and sports facilities and other range of facilities. At 5,500m² it is about 10% the footprint of TopSite pink land as a size comparator.
Battersea Park does have the advantage of bordering central London and the Thames, and a short bus trip from the tube network, but it indicates there other viable parkland models and use of parkland that “are” successful.
From what I have researched and asking the Friends of Battersea park:
• With Battersea park Wandsworth Council do make money through leases to the events arena, restaurants, zoo and other various concessions including the Events and Filming team, although I believe this all goes into the general council spending pot and is not ring fenced for investment back into the Park.
• The money received from the HLF was matched by a similar investment from Wandsworth Council, and was spent on restoring the Park to the Victorian pattern.
• The Park also benefits from having a police presence on site, so is considered safe by most users
• Wandsworth Council may be considering contracting out the management of all open spaces in the borough, with the front runners being a team of existing council employees.
Note, the Battersea Park web site:
• number of car parks within the Park, all Pay and Display
• Local streets are almost exclusively permit holder only or pay and display, although almost all are free at the weekend.
Comparison to Kew Gardens excludes explaining their business model: All entry is paid entrance to the park: Adults: £14.50, (children under 16 free), Senior (60+): £12.50. Or by membership pa: Individual: £71 or Joint: £98. So not such a relevant example.
It is Policy that the Mayor strongly supports the current extent of Metropolitan Open Land (MOL) and its protection from development having an adverse impact on the openness of MOL. So, why is the Mayor now seeking and supporting a scheme that is not ancillary to use of MOL when no “very special circumstances” are identified, and there are alterative viable options? Why is the Crystal Palace Park “advisory board” not looking at such other viable schemes first, that are ancillary to MOL use, that could repair and restore the parkland and increase visitor numbers and provide suitable and sustainable commercial leverage of the parkland combined with the NSC (that is the “core” of the park)?
Seems odd that a plan to “repair and restore” the Crystal Palace Park, actually means bulldozing and build over up to 13.5 acres of the very parkland that is meant to “repaired and restored”, and is then said to be “in-line” with the Masterplan!
As to “waiting” for more details of the plans, the plans we already have are actually have well advanced and now in “outline of the scheme” provided already, noting the Mayor’s response:
• GLA officers have been working with officers from the London Borough of Bromley and Arup (as Mr Ni’s representatives) since May to support the development of Mr Ni’s proposals for the reconstruction of the Crystal Palace. Mr Ni has appointed Arup to develop an approach to the planning application, public engagement and the ‘content’ proposition for the Palace. This is consolidated into a prospectus which was made public on the day of the launch in hard copy and on a website.
We do know the outline scale, size, and intended use for this indended mass public event space, and we know what the 1990 Crystal Palace Act already has granted planning “permission” for a development at this Site (for now and the future) to allow: hotel, restaurant, shops, licensed premises, leisure facilities, entertainment facilities…”.
Officers have stated to the Executive that it is "anticipated" that over half of the building would comprise major exhibition use, "It could provide a new place for the best and largest cultural exhibitions from across the world to be on display", and, the remaining use of building to be “range of different functions” designed to ensure the sustainability and viability of the scheme.
But, the “content” of the use this building can change in time, and is not protected by the terms of the original Royal Charters that created The Crystal Palace.
So, just what assurance do we have the % use of the building for “cultural” purposes will permanently remain above a defined acceptable level? Otherwise, it must be presumed the “major” exhibition spaces will be as commercially flexible as those at Earls Court and Olympia, ExCel or the 02. Hence comparisons for:
• The ground floor of the original Palace: could easily fit Earls Court One, est 450,050sq ft, capacity 20,000 (or 17,500 as theatre)
• Replicating “half the width” of the original ground floor, could fit Earls Court Two est 182,986 sq ft, capacity 10,750 (or 10,000 as theatre)
• In between these two sizes, is the Tate Modern at 371,350 sqft has up to 14,800 visitors per day on average
http://eco.co.uk/content/uploads/files/ ... ochure.pdfPg 10 gives good examples of scale/capacity in a range of different venue sizes.
A key driver to justify and push this this scheme through the planning process will no doubt be its “cultural” applications, which forms the basis for the size and scale of the proposed major "exhibition spaces" . But. Once built, this will be very hard (if at all possible) to put into planning permission or "restrictions" as to why this % “cultural” use (defined as % building allocated space for “exhibition space” or “other commercial functions”, or, % use over time of the type of exhibition events hosted) can’t change, significantly.
I very much doubt a new Crystal Palace Royal Charter will be created to define this, as was originally created for the original Palace at Sydenham to mandate its public and education value.
What has not been clearly demonstrated is the “need” for the scale of this size commercial development.
Very useful comparison has been made to Battersea Park in the MasterPlan. it shows a success story in rejuvenating park visitor numbers and an inner London park. And they did this without the need to sell and build overup to 13.5 acres of their parkland for a colossal commercial mass public events centre, yet they have increased their estimated visitor numbers by 2m additional visitors pa, from 3m visitors pa, to 5m visitor pa using £7.5m HLF. The same number of “additional” visitors pa that Arup are now seeking.
Master Plan: Outline Business Case (Pg 27 and 40), http://www.crystalpalacecampaign.org/Ma ... s_Case.pdf
• Battersea Park is an 80 hectare green space situated in Wandsworth. The park is home to three Victorian gardens, a small zoo, a boating lake, a bandstand and several all-weather outdoor sporting facilities including tennis courts, a running track and football pitches. Battersea received £7.5million HLF between 2002-04. In the 12 months before they received HLF monies they had 3,000,000 visitors. In the last 12 months it was estimated Battersea Park had visitor numbers of 5,000,000
• Battersea Park has a large events arena with capacity varying according to layout. The events arena has indoor facilities that cater for 1,000 - 2,000 visitors per event and outdoor facilities that cater for between 6,000 - 30,000 visitors per concert.
Plus, Battersea Park now has very successful “exhibition” space for 4,000 visitor capacity in multipurpose indoor event and exhibition capacity using an event company (in a temporary structure) from http://www.batterseaevolution.co.uk/about so I assume could be ancillary to the use of MOL. It has a Zoo and larger outdoor event spaces programme and sports facilities and other range of facilities. At 5,500m² it is about 10% the footprint of TopSite pink land as a size comparator.
Battersea Park does have the advantage of bordering central London and the Thames, and a short bus trip from the tube network, but it indicates there other viable parkland models and use of parkland that “are” successful.
From what I have researched and asking the Friends of Battersea park:
• With Battersea park Wandsworth Council do make money through leases to the events arena, restaurants, zoo and other various concessions including the Events and Filming team, although I believe this all goes into the general council spending pot and is not ring fenced for investment back into the Park.
• The money received from the HLF was matched by a similar investment from Wandsworth Council, and was spent on restoring the Park to the Victorian pattern.
• The Park also benefits from having a police presence on site, so is considered safe by most users
• Wandsworth Council may be considering contracting out the management of all open spaces in the borough, with the front runners being a team of existing council employees.
Note, the Battersea Park web site:
• number of car parks within the Park, all Pay and Display
• Local streets are almost exclusively permit holder only or pay and display, although almost all are free at the weekend.
Comparison to Kew Gardens excludes explaining their business model: All entry is paid entrance to the park: Adults: £14.50, (children under 16 free), Senior (60+): £12.50. Or by membership pa: Individual: £71 or Joint: £98. So not such a relevant example.
It is Policy that the Mayor strongly supports the current extent of Metropolitan Open Land (MOL) and its protection from development having an adverse impact on the openness of MOL. So, why is the Mayor now seeking and supporting a scheme that is not ancillary to use of MOL when no “very special circumstances” are identified, and there are alterative viable options? Why is the Crystal Palace Park “advisory board” not looking at such other viable schemes first, that are ancillary to MOL use, that could repair and restore the parkland and increase visitor numbers and provide suitable and sustainable commercial leverage of the parkland combined with the NSC (that is the “core” of the park)?
Seems odd that a plan to “repair and restore” the Crystal Palace Park, actually means bulldozing and build over up to 13.5 acres of the very parkland that is meant to “repaired and restored”, and is then said to be “in-line” with the Masterplan!
As to “waiting” for more details of the plans, the plans we already have are actually have well advanced and now in “outline of the scheme” provided already, noting the Mayor’s response:
• GLA officers have been working with officers from the London Borough of Bromley and Arup (as Mr Ni’s representatives) since May to support the development of Mr Ni’s proposals for the reconstruction of the Crystal Palace. Mr Ni has appointed Arup to develop an approach to the planning application, public engagement and the ‘content’ proposition for the Palace. This is consolidated into a prospectus which was made public on the day of the launch in hard copy and on a website.
We do know the outline scale, size, and intended use for this indended mass public event space, and we know what the 1990 Crystal Palace Act already has granted planning “permission” for a development at this Site (for now and the future) to allow: hotel, restaurant, shops, licensed premises, leisure facilities, entertainment facilities…”.
Officers have stated to the Executive that it is "anticipated" that over half of the building would comprise major exhibition use, "It could provide a new place for the best and largest cultural exhibitions from across the world to be on display", and, the remaining use of building to be “range of different functions” designed to ensure the sustainability and viability of the scheme.
But, the “content” of the use this building can change in time, and is not protected by the terms of the original Royal Charters that created The Crystal Palace.
So, just what assurance do we have the % use of the building for “cultural” purposes will permanently remain above a defined acceptable level? Otherwise, it must be presumed the “major” exhibition spaces will be as commercially flexible as those at Earls Court and Olympia, ExCel or the 02. Hence comparisons for:
• The ground floor of the original Palace: could easily fit Earls Court One, est 450,050sq ft, capacity 20,000 (or 17,500 as theatre)
• Replicating “half the width” of the original ground floor, could fit Earls Court Two est 182,986 sq ft, capacity 10,750 (or 10,000 as theatre)
• In between these two sizes, is the Tate Modern at 371,350 sqft has up to 14,800 visitors per day on average
http://eco.co.uk/content/uploads/files/ ... ochure.pdfPg 10 gives good examples of scale/capacity in a range of different venue sizes.
A key driver to justify and push this this scheme through the planning process will no doubt be its “cultural” applications, which forms the basis for the size and scale of the proposed major "exhibition spaces" . But. Once built, this will be very hard (if at all possible) to put into planning permission or "restrictions" as to why this % “cultural” use (defined as % building allocated space for “exhibition space” or “other commercial functions”, or, % use over time of the type of exhibition events hosted) can’t change, significantly.
I very much doubt a new Crystal Palace Royal Charter will be created to define this, as was originally created for the original Palace at Sydenham to mandate its public and education value.
Re: CRYSTAL PALACE PLANS TO BE UNVEILED
When the Minister replied this week “it would be rather marvellous if this city had such a thing again”, just what “thing” was he referring to?
With help from the Mayor chairing the Crystal Palace Advisory Board, we will find out, as this quango is tasked “to help develop the future mix of uses”. And I presume to work out how to “dress up” just what “thing” could be marvellous for public consumption at this Site.
The Minister was just as clear about the rebuild, as this was “tremendously exciting… to rebuild some version of the building, although obviously in modern form”.
Under the dressed up image we have been given so far, we know this building is designed to be “An adaptable and flexible internal space” for a “range of different functions” to ensure the sustainability and viability of the scheme, and no doubt designed within current planning permissions for “hotel, restaurant, shops, licensed premises, leisure facilities, entertainment facilities” and major mass public event exhibition uses.
But, the Minister also said: “We have made it very clear to the Mayor of London and the London borough of Bromley that we are happy to work with them to try to resolve those legislative issues through whatever means necessary” (my bold).
The proposed Scheme breaks the law (needing an Act of Parliament amended or repealed to proceed), it is dressed up to be a “rebuild” of the original Palace yet it clearly is not replicating the original inside nor out, nor committed to “reflect the architectural style of the original”. Internally, its main role isn’t being defined to be a “museum” for the public benefit (as was the use of the original Palace and defined in its Royal Charter). Instead it is stated as a major commercial “exhibition” space (like Earls Court or Olympia).
Existing stated similarities to the “Science Museum”, add to these misleading impressions of what the building’s permanent main use will be, as its % space or % use for cultural activities are not planned to be enforceable.
When you strip away all the symbolism, it seems to me this is a scheme principally to transform Crystal Palace district centre for commercial gain, and not principally for local community benefit.
The heart of Crystal Palace district centre is presently the parkland (and NSC) and its designated Upper Norwood Triangle Conservation Area of about 14 acres. Yet this development to sell off and build over up to 13.5 acres of parkland, and create a 6 storeys high commercial development Site could at least double the total business rateable floor area of Crystal Palace district’s centre. The scale of this Scheme is huge, replicating the original Palace for its “size and scale” it could fit Croydon’s retail Whitgift Centre (reported as 154 shop units and 580,000 square feet), or Earls Court One (capacity 20,000 visitors) just on the ground floor alone.
Further, the ability for “change of use” by the private owners over time is very significant to the long term impact to the Crystal Palace district, especially when considering the unique and unprecedented real estate value of this prime double aspect Major Skyline Ridge. It is incredibly important that this is not an elite project, yet this may happen, as the current Royal Charters and planning permissions do not provide suitable public interest safe-guards for the level of culture activities and “future mix of uses”, or change of use of the “building” over time once built.
So, why the bias support from Bromley Officers, Cllrs, Mayor and now a Minister, all showing willing to “change the law” to grant planning permission and “to resolve those legislative issues through whatever means necessary”?
How will the voice of the local community be given fair say in this legislative and planning process when there appears such bias? When the local community were extensively consulted for the MasterPlan they wanted “no” such scale of building on the TopSite. Under the Localism Act I believe we can request a local referendum on local matters. With the Bromley Cllrs already negotiating with the Developers knowing they “need” to change the law for this planning matter, we the local community, may not have any other way to get a fair say before Parliament acts on your behalf to “to resolve those legislative issues through whatever means necessary”.
With help from the Mayor chairing the Crystal Palace Advisory Board, we will find out, as this quango is tasked “to help develop the future mix of uses”. And I presume to work out how to “dress up” just what “thing” could be marvellous for public consumption at this Site.
The Minister was just as clear about the rebuild, as this was “tremendously exciting… to rebuild some version of the building, although obviously in modern form”.
Under the dressed up image we have been given so far, we know this building is designed to be “An adaptable and flexible internal space” for a “range of different functions” to ensure the sustainability and viability of the scheme, and no doubt designed within current planning permissions for “hotel, restaurant, shops, licensed premises, leisure facilities, entertainment facilities” and major mass public event exhibition uses.
But, the Minister also said: “We have made it very clear to the Mayor of London and the London borough of Bromley that we are happy to work with them to try to resolve those legislative issues through whatever means necessary” (my bold).
The proposed Scheme breaks the law (needing an Act of Parliament amended or repealed to proceed), it is dressed up to be a “rebuild” of the original Palace yet it clearly is not replicating the original inside nor out, nor committed to “reflect the architectural style of the original”. Internally, its main role isn’t being defined to be a “museum” for the public benefit (as was the use of the original Palace and defined in its Royal Charter). Instead it is stated as a major commercial “exhibition” space (like Earls Court or Olympia).
Existing stated similarities to the “Science Museum”, add to these misleading impressions of what the building’s permanent main use will be, as its % space or % use for cultural activities are not planned to be enforceable.
When you strip away all the symbolism, it seems to me this is a scheme principally to transform Crystal Palace district centre for commercial gain, and not principally for local community benefit.
The heart of Crystal Palace district centre is presently the parkland (and NSC) and its designated Upper Norwood Triangle Conservation Area of about 14 acres. Yet this development to sell off and build over up to 13.5 acres of parkland, and create a 6 storeys high commercial development Site could at least double the total business rateable floor area of Crystal Palace district’s centre. The scale of this Scheme is huge, replicating the original Palace for its “size and scale” it could fit Croydon’s retail Whitgift Centre (reported as 154 shop units and 580,000 square feet), or Earls Court One (capacity 20,000 visitors) just on the ground floor alone.
Further, the ability for “change of use” by the private owners over time is very significant to the long term impact to the Crystal Palace district, especially when considering the unique and unprecedented real estate value of this prime double aspect Major Skyline Ridge. It is incredibly important that this is not an elite project, yet this may happen, as the current Royal Charters and planning permissions do not provide suitable public interest safe-guards for the level of culture activities and “future mix of uses”, or change of use of the “building” over time once built.
So, why the bias support from Bromley Officers, Cllrs, Mayor and now a Minister, all showing willing to “change the law” to grant planning permission and “to resolve those legislative issues through whatever means necessary”?
How will the voice of the local community be given fair say in this legislative and planning process when there appears such bias? When the local community were extensively consulted for the MasterPlan they wanted “no” such scale of building on the TopSite. Under the Localism Act I believe we can request a local referendum on local matters. With the Bromley Cllrs already negotiating with the Developers knowing they “need” to change the law for this planning matter, we the local community, may not have any other way to get a fair say before Parliament acts on your behalf to “to resolve those legislative issues through whatever means necessary”.
-
downthehill
- Posts: 53
- Joined: 2 Oct 2009 09:47
- Location: Gipsy Hill
Re: CRYSTAL PALACE PLANS TO BE UNVEILED
Timetable update courtesy of Councillor Getgood. Note that the formal consultation starts in the Spring but there is a drop in sesssion on 10 December
Just a couple of updates from the recent Executive Board meeting: Not unexpectedly, the timetable has slipped somewhat.
Arup's will be launching the design competition during winter 2013/14.
The Advisory Board will be agreeing the design brief, probably this week. This will be based on the brief in the original brochure and is very much an outline rather than specific detail. .
An architect will be appointed in Spring 2014
Formal consultation on the scheme starts at Easter 2014
Planning Application to be submitted Winter 2014.
The first open community engagement session will be Crystal Palace on December 10th at the Living Water Cafe in Westow Street between 2 and 8 pm.
Don't forget you can receive email updates by registering on the web site http://www.thelondoncrystalpalace.com/
[ Post made via Mobile Device ]
Just a couple of updates from the recent Executive Board meeting: Not unexpectedly, the timetable has slipped somewhat.
Arup's will be launching the design competition during winter 2013/14.
The Advisory Board will be agreeing the design brief, probably this week. This will be based on the brief in the original brochure and is very much an outline rather than specific detail. .
An architect will be appointed in Spring 2014
Formal consultation on the scheme starts at Easter 2014
Planning Application to be submitted Winter 2014.
The first open community engagement session will be Crystal Palace on December 10th at the Living Water Cafe in Westow Street between 2 and 8 pm.
Don't forget you can receive email updates by registering on the web site http://www.thelondoncrystalpalace.com/
[ Post made via Mobile Device ]
Re: CRYSTAL PALACE PLANS TO BE UNVEILED
http://www.change.org/petitions/members ... ation-for-
The following is from the open letter
"We understand that ZRG needs to secure the land deal, at least in principle, as a precursor to them ramping up their work on the proposal, which will include the preparation of a full planning application and launching an attempt to alter or repeal the 1990 Crystal Palace Act of Parliament that restricts construction on the site.
Due to the impact of such a land deal on the future of the Crystal Palace Park, and on land that is both MOL and a heritage site of national significance, we are concerned that:
a) this land deal may potentially be in conflict with the rationale behind MOL designation;
b) this land deal is being unilaterally and privately negotiated between LB Bromley and ZRG without open competition or public tender;
c) public funding for park restoration (from GLA, HLF and Bromley) has been lost as a direct consequence of ZRG interventions, without commensurate financial guarantees or upfront recompense should the ZRG proposal come to naught;
d) in practical terms ZRG and its international holding company in Hong Kong, through being private companies with no accountability to the UK public, may in effect be given carte blanche for the future treatment and development of the site;
e) assurances by ZRG regarding the parts of the scheme that will remain for public amenity use cannot be guaranteed nor legally and robustly secured;
f) the terms of the land deal for a site of such significant public interest are not the subject of more public consultation, debate and scrutiny;
g) the private nature of the negotiations for the land deal means that there is little transparency in how MOL is being protected from inappropriate development."
The following is from the open letter
"We understand that ZRG needs to secure the land deal, at least in principle, as a precursor to them ramping up their work on the proposal, which will include the preparation of a full planning application and launching an attempt to alter or repeal the 1990 Crystal Palace Act of Parliament that restricts construction on the site.
Due to the impact of such a land deal on the future of the Crystal Palace Park, and on land that is both MOL and a heritage site of national significance, we are concerned that:
a) this land deal may potentially be in conflict with the rationale behind MOL designation;
b) this land deal is being unilaterally and privately negotiated between LB Bromley and ZRG without open competition or public tender;
c) public funding for park restoration (from GLA, HLF and Bromley) has been lost as a direct consequence of ZRG interventions, without commensurate financial guarantees or upfront recompense should the ZRG proposal come to naught;
d) in practical terms ZRG and its international holding company in Hong Kong, through being private companies with no accountability to the UK public, may in effect be given carte blanche for the future treatment and development of the site;
e) assurances by ZRG regarding the parts of the scheme that will remain for public amenity use cannot be guaranteed nor legally and robustly secured;
f) the terms of the land deal for a site of such significant public interest are not the subject of more public consultation, debate and scrutiny;
g) the private nature of the negotiations for the land deal means that there is little transparency in how MOL is being protected from inappropriate development."