Houses built in Crystal palace park?

[leenewham]

What insults or spears has he directed at you Duke? I read through it and couldn't find an actual smears or insult.

To me it looks like he has a difference of opinion to you and that you are taking that as insulting.

What actual examples are there, I may have missed something.

On a more serious note, what are you views masterplans idea of marking out the palace's footprint in trees?

Do you this this is a fitting tribute to the palace?

Or should we just forget there was ever a crystal palace in the park and move on and bring the area back into the park?

Or do you have/know of a better idea?

[Duke of Clarence]

What insults or spears has he directed at you Duke? I read through it and couldn't find an actual smears or insult. To me it looks like he has a difference of opinion to you and that you are taking that as insulting.

Lee the insults and smears I was referring to are those made before I blocked him from my contact list - not the comments here - but I do think it is fair to point out that my judgement re dth has been clouded by my past expereince and most certainly not because he has a different view on CPP.

On a more serious note, what are you views masterplans idea of marking out the palace's footprint in trees? Do you this this is a fitting tribute to the palace? Or should we just forget there was ever a crystal palace in the park and move on and bring the area back into the park? Or do you have/know of a better idea?

Of course there should be recognition of the Palace and the Treescape does offer a subtle, sympathetic tribute to what was once there - I don't think we should be going back to the future to create a replica.

[downthehill]

Six months ago I blocked his phone and email from my contact list due to the increasingly abusive and malicious correspondence - reading some of the stuff he sent was distressing and left me feeling emotionally battered.

Well that's news to me. The Duke puts me in a difficult position because what she says is highly inflammatory and I simply can't address what she says without referring to off forum matters, so whilst I don't wish too upset her with another post, nor disclose personal information, I am afraid I am obliged to do so in order to exercise my right to reply.

I have been on the receiving end of dth's vitriol in the past and I can tell you that it simply does not stop.......

I fully accept that there have been harsh words between me and the Duke in the past but it's not one way street by any means, not by a long, long way. For the record I have not spoken to The Duke by phone for over 12 months, nor have I attempted to. The only e-mail exchange we have had since last October (bar one I refer to below) was a perfectly pleasant e-mail exchange in November and December over another local issue, which the Duke precipitated by calling me and leaving a message on my voicemail. Duke checak your e-mails (29 Nevmber 2011 please). The same week she was also quite happy to speak to me (indeed she approached me) at the first save the library campaign meeting at the end of November.

The only other direct contact I have had with The Duke since then was by e-mail in February of this year to ask her to get Mike Warwick of the CPCA to remove a post from VN when he published my full name because, having done so in clear breach of my anonymity on a local forum, The Duke (notably not Mr Warwick himself) made over half a dozen posts on VN acting as an apologist for his actions and was cleraly in direct communications with him about it.

http://www.virtualnorwood.com/forum/top ... m-for-cpp/

Having been exceptionally annoyed at a breach of my confidence by publication of my full name without consent on a forum, and having made my annoyance known to the Duke in no uncertain terms I am , and have been , very careful not to do the same to others.

And the many , many , robust posts The Duke has made in response to my posts on VN over the last 6 months do not, I am afraid, support any suggestion whatsover that the Duke is either threatened or intimidated by me or is emotionally battered- quite the opposite.

This is just one exmaple

http://www.virtualnorwood.com/forum/top ... msearch__1

I find his presence here unwelome and the fact he keeps alluding to having knowledge of me both threatening and creepy

I have alluded to nothing. I do know you, you know me. That's a fact. But what personal informaton have I disclosed about you Duke ? None that's what. Absolutely none.

I won't expect an apology for thie dsgraecgul attempt to slander me. i knwo you to well for that. So I would suggest you hit the ignore function, and I will do likewise

[leenewham]

Mod is away, which is why I'm writing this. But he/she/they will be back soon.

From you earlier posts Duke, it sounds as if you were referring to posts made in here that were insulting towards you, but I can't find any reference to them.

If they were made in PM's then I suggest that you take it up with the moderators rather than saying so on an open forum, which is the actual place for such disputes. It would have been a far better and more helpful debate about the future of the park if all your posts had just been about the facts and the future of the park. While a bit of banter is good and can be fun, this tread has seemingly become rather sour.

The Masterplan is a serious issue, one that will have a huge influence on the future of the park for generations to come. Many people disagree (as we do). I think it would be best to cool off a little and focus on the issues, facts, ideas and solutions…with a little bit of fun along the way.

[downthehill]

If they were made in PM's then I suggest that you take it up with the moderators rather than saying so on an open forum, which is the actual place for such disputes

I've made no PM's to the Duke either Lee. I have not communicated with her at all since last November , bar one occassion which I refer to above when my full name was published by the CPCA. And I am becoming increasingly unhappy at the fact that the Duke has now accused me , four times now, of threats and has now accused me of smears and insults and deeply entrenched prejudices.

If you want the truth about who it is that aims insults at those she diasgrees with, of prejudice, and of smears look no further than the thread on VN I linked to and the reference to "MPdophiles . I am not going to sit back and be accused of prejudicial views or intolerance by someone who believes that it is appropriate to label those who support the masterplan as having a deviant sexual interest in children. (and then seek to suggest it was a howler - not a flamer") - Hilarious.

[leenewham]

If the mod is reading this, I suggest they close this thread.

[Rachael]

I've read right through this thread, and those on VN linked by dth. The only thing that is clear to me is that the Duke and downthehill have been having a right old barney over on VN and have brought it here. I agree wholeheartedly with Lee that this needs to stop.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[Annie.]

I started the thread , perhaps its time I ended it, its been interesting to hear each side of the story, so to speak, I am perhaps not so fearful of the proposed developement as I originally was, providing it is done sympathetically.I don,t like it when it starts to get personal. this is why I for one am against disclosing our real identities, but thats for another thread.So goodnight and thank you. :0))

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[Eagle]

I agree with Annie and Lee.
I have long since lost interest in a argument between two members which is in danger of getting bitter.

[ALIB]

i thought the debate was good, until The Duke started making unsubstantiated claims about the development proposal and about DTH.

Totally undermined her argument

[Duke of Clarence]

Time to clear up the personal myths and hyperbole:

1)As part of dth's spat with me he decided to dislcose that he was a member of CPTPG and posted a statement on their behalf. Confusingly he went on to state that he was not speaking for CPTPG or indeed any other group and that he only represented himself on this forum. He then decided that he had a right to make a load of unsubstantiated claims about me and disclose which groups and forums he I am a member of - that is what I consider an invasion of my privacy and extremely bad form. Most of what he wrote was incorrect.

2) As a result of that invasion of privacy I decided to reveal that in the past he had subjected me to malicious correspondence that was as stated in the form of emails not PMs - hence my reaction to his appearance here. Sadly I have had no pleasant exchanges with dth in either the real or virtual world.

3) The term MPophile was, as explained at the time, a reference to lovers of the Masterplan - a play on the terms Anglophile/Europhile it was not in any way alleging those who supported the MP were paedophiles - the "d" was a typo but the comment had been removed before I had chance to edit. Dth's outrage/offence is disingenous and is being reheated here in the full knowledge that it was not intended to convey anything sinister.

Back on topic - AliB do not let an ugly personal spat brought here by dth influence your views on housing in CPP. I am interested to know what claims you would like me to substantiate.

[CaptainCarCrash]

I though the duke was a geezer?

Edit because all has become clear

[Eagle]

Strolled right through the park on Sunday and impressed with general upkeep.

Full marks to London Borough of Bromley.

Pity about the new houses and hope never built.

[downthehill]

At the risk of reopening an old, and remarkably heated thread , I thought STFers might want to know that the CPCA have lost their appeal.

Now some might say CPCA lost their appeal some time ago
(sorry I will behave) but this is about their legal appeal to the Court of Appeal against the decision of the court of first instance rejecting their judicial review challenging the LDA masterplan for the park.

The judgement is yet to be published but for those who have been following the saga

After a long a contentious planning enquiry the planning inspector recommended to the Secretary of State that he approve the LDA's masterplan

The inspectors report and details of the masterplan can be read here

www.crystalpalacecampaign.or g/MasterPlan/MPrep100721.pdf

http://www.crystalpa...aster_links.htm

The Secretary of State approved the Master plan subject to certain conditions including legal agreements that the funds from the proposed housing would be guaranteed to be spent on implementing parts of the plan. Those agreements are here

palacemag.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/...06-23-Sept-20101.pdf

The CPCA sought to challenge the approval of the masterplan through a judicial review but this was rejected. judgment here

http://www.bailii.or...&method=boolean

But then obtained leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal. See here

http://issuu.com/cpc...1231508/2067786

But this has apparently now been unanimously rejected

In theory, subject to getting permission , CPCA could now try to go to the Supreme Court but as thing now stand the long running challenge to the MP is over, at least in the courts and the initial decision of the inspector stands

So what now ?

Well Bromley continue to explore ways of implementing the spirit of the MP through the explorative process of a possible community trust

http://www.bromley.gov.uk/downloads/dow ... ction_plan

The LDA is no more so who knows if they will ever take up the option of the lease of the park and try to resurrect the whole plan and a more modest 10 point plan is being discussed . See CPCA newsletter above

Now I will shut up. No opinions , no arguments. Just facts.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[leenewham]

Thanks for letting us know.

I think it's good news. It's a shame that the whole scheme has now essentially been scuppered by this and huge sums of money wasted. I guess the houses wont get built and the park done up after all. So I guess the CPCA won and the park, local businesses, park users and economy lost.

[dickp]

Nope. Now the legal battle is out of the way, there is legal certainty.

Funding, while difficult, is no longer impossible due to the legal challenge hanging over the whole plan.

It'll take time, but stuff is happening. And the lease on the caravan park expires in 2019, I believe. That'll unlock some cash. Heck, we might even be out of recession by then.

[leenewham]

I hope your right Dick. The new laws surrounding emissions has killed the caravan park as it's too expensive for mobile homes to come into London now although surprisingly it's still open.

I still find it odd that people are complaining about building houses on a caravan park and other bits which the public don't have any access to as it's not really part of the park, in a park which historically was once full of buildings. I expect that totally new plans will be submitted, new consultations and planning applications put in before this is resolved. I really liked the plans for the houses, possibly the best looking plans for any new building in the area since I've moved here.

I'm surprised Tim hasn't commented on this as it's about housing. Tim? Hello? Anyone there?

[Tim Lund]

I'm here, but with nothing to add really to what you and Dickp wrote. We probably all agree that the planning hasn't worked well in this case, but that doesn't mean I think we should tear up the whole system ...