L30_UDP report

(L.30)EXTRACT FROM PART REPORT TO THE LONDON BOROUGH OF BROMLEY CONCERNING CRYSTAL PALACE PARK

By Mrs Ava Wood Dip Arch Architect

1st September 2004

CONTENTS

Summary of Objections to removal of land from MOL
Inspector's Reasoning and Conclusions
Summary of Objections to Proposal Site 9
Inspector's Reasoning and Conclusions
RECOMMENDATION

8.2 MDS AT NATIONAL SPORTS CENTRE, CRYSTAL PALACE AND SITE PROPOSAL 8.

Summary of Objections
Inspector's Reasoning and Conclusions
RECOMMENDATIONS
NATIONAL SPORTS CENTRE MAJOR DEVELOPED SITE (MDS)

go to Glossary: for abbreviations found here and elsewhere on the website
go to Editor's NOTES

8.1	Crystal Palace Park
8.1.1	There is considerable overlap in the issues relating to, firstly, objections to Policy G2, its supporting text and modification of the MOL boundary and, secondly, to Proposal Sites 8 and 9. The arguments and objections are interdependent and linked also with issues concerning the strategic treatment of Crystal Palace Park. In this Section I shall deal only with the matters concerned with the MOL designation, plus those relevant to Proposal Sites 8 and 9.
8.1.2	In the 2DD version of the UDP the Proposals Map indicates an area of land on the western section of Crystal Palace Park (known as the Top Site), which is described as disused land and allocated for, inter alia, leisure and recreational development (Proposal Site 9). Land to be released from MOL coincides with the extent of the proposal site, which in turn comprises the footprint of the historic Crystal Palace. Although the Council has now reinstated the Top Site as MOL and deleted Proposal Site 9 (under a FIC), I have a duty to consider the 2DD proposals, as the FIC was not subject to the statutory period of consultation.

top of page; contents

Summary of Objections to removal of land from MOL

(i)

The site has been MOL for at least 20 years and has been an intrinsic part of the Park for over 70 years. It reflects and meets each of the designation criteria, as set out in RPG3 and the London Plan, as well as reflects GOL's suggested goals for promoting urban quality. No exceptional circumstances have been advanced to justify removal of the site from MOL.

(ii)

The land is neglected but not disused or derelict. The neglect is due partly to the Council's own actions. In any case, the condition of the land is not a reason for removal of its MOL status.

(iii)

Now that there is no imminent commercial development of the site, there is no good reason for removing the MOL designation.

(iv)

The land is highly valued by the local community as part of the Park, and it makes an important contribution to the overall perception of openness. It provides a view into the Park from the public highway; it performs the function of a park for residents over a wide area and provides a natural visual amenity.

(v)

Unlike the majority of the formally landscaped parkland areas of the Park, the top site provides a rural atmosphere with a sense of countryside, magnificent views and sense of space.

(vi)

While the more formal areas of the Park contribute to the area as a cultural asset, there is little in the way of native ground flora. The Top Site has by far the most scrub, woodland, wildflowers and grassland habitat. It is also recognised by LWT as an important feeding and resting point for migrant birds.

(vii)

The current boundary, formed by Crystal Palace Parade, is a logical, defensible and physically defined boundary. The proposed boundary would not possess such attributes. MOL protection at this point would be weakened and the adjoining sites (gardens adjoining traffic lights at Anerley Hill/Crystal Palace Parade junction and Thames Water sites) would become vulnerable.

(viii)

Removal of the land from MOL would be contrary to national policy that seeks to protect open space (PPG17, paras 5, 24, 27, 31 51).

top of page; contents

Inspector's Reasoning and Conclusions

8.1.3

Save for the bus interchange area, the Top Site has a predominantly open character. It is elevated, highly visible from a considerable distance, wooded in parts and indistinguishable from the open and recreational aspects of the Park as a whole, the importance and significance of which spread beyond Bromley. Given the time that has elapsed since the Palace burnt down, and the absence of development on the site since then, this cannot be described as previously developed land. While there may be some debate about the nature conservation or habitat value of the site in metropolitan terms, there is little doubt about its wider historic significance, again in conjunction with the remains of the original Paxton layout.

8.1.4

Given these attributes, it follows that the land proposed for exclusion from the 2DD meets the London Plan criteria for designation. What is more, it performs the MOL function of providing a clear break in the urban fabric and contributes to the green character of London. The current boundary of the MOL is recognisable, defensible and protects the MOL from encroachment. The same cannot be said for the proposed boundary, as there are no obvious or similarly well-defined features to mark the extent of the land to be excluded. The new boundary would not be robust and would expose the vulnerability of adjoining areas of the Park &endash; namely the site of the TV transmitter mast and the Thames Water site.

8.1.5

The Council reasoned that the purpose of removing the MOL designation was to carry forward the proposal in the adopted UDP and to reflect the extant planning permission granted for the leisure development in 1998. It has to be said that since 1987 there have been a number of leisure developments granted permission in the Park. The latest permission however expired in March 2003. I need not emphasise in this Report the conflicts that have arisen in connection with the permitted scheme. The facts are known to all those involved and it would serve no useful purpose for me to reiterate or respond to the well-aired evidence concerning the granting and demise of the 1998 permission. The relevant fact to record is that at the time of the Inquiry it was confirmed that there were no plans before the Council for development on the Top Site.

8.1.6

I agree with the Council that had the leisure scheme been implemented, there may have been grounds for considering release of the site from MOL. However, there is no longer any compelling evidence from the Council or anyone else to suggest that exceptional circumstances exist to justify any change to the MOL boundary at the top end of the Park. Certainly, the present unmanaged state of the land is not a reason for changing the MOL boundary or for allowing development. Instead, as advised in the London Plan, steps should be taken to improve it. In the absence of any, let alone exceptional, reasons for altering the boundary at the Top Site, I support the Council's FIC to retain the land as MOL.

top of page; contents

Summary of Objections to Proposal Site 9

(i)

There is no supporting justification for or research that supports the need for leisure development in the area. No sequential analysis has been undertaken to justify the Top Site as a favoured sustainable location for such a development.

(ii)

Equally, no audit of open space deficiency undertaken to justify removal of the site from the land bank of recreational land.

(iii)

The surrounding areas are poorly served by MOL and rising residential population increases pressure on local green space. Loss of the Top Site to development would be irreversible and would remove a valuable area of land used by a large number of people for informal recreation.

(iv)

The proposed designation reflects a use which completely failed, was universally disliked and would be economically unsustainable. It runs counter to all the ideas and thinking about Parks that have emerged during the 1990s.

(v)

The site is the entry to the South East London Green Chain. A substantial commercial development would be an incongruous physical symbol at the beginning of this cross-borough green initiative.

(vi)

Any development on the site would impact on the integrity of the historic landscape.

(vii)

If an architectural focus or commercial use is to be provided, then it should serve the Park rather than vice versa.

(viii)

The designation pre-empts work carried out by stakeholders and LBB to try to develop a framework for regeneration of the Park.

top of page; contents

Inspector's Reasoning and Conclusions

8.1.7

Having agreed with the Council's FIC to retain the Top Site in the MOL, it follows that Proposal Site 9 would constitute an inappropriate development and it would be wrong to promote such a development in the UDP. I have to say that, in planning terms alone, I have some considerable doubts about the proposal, given the absence of any justification in PPG6 or PPG13 terms, as well as the lack of any open space audit or strategy to justify loss of this area of open land. The Council's witness submitted that some development is likely to take place on the Top Site to reflect its importance. However, as with any other inappropriate development in MOL or GB, such proposals would be subject to the tests of very special circumstances, in the context of an application, but should not be given the status of automatic acceptability in the UDP. The Council's decision to delete Proposal Site 9, in the face of the MOL designation, is correct and I support the FIC.

RECOMMENDATION

8.1.8

Modify the UDP by deleting Proposal Site 9 and including the Top Site at Crystal Palace Park in MOL, in accordance with the proposed FIC.

top of page; contents

8.2

MDS AT NATIONAL SPORTS CENTRE, CRYSTAL PALACE AND SITE PROPOSAL 8.

Summary of Objections

(i)

The MDS designation should be deleted. It is not an appropriate allocation within an MOL.

(ii)

Buildings can be refurbished without the MDS allocation.

(iii)

The MDS boundary is too widely drawn, which could lead to a spread of buildings across what is now open land and substantially increase the footprints of buildings, particularly to the north and west.

(iv)

The stadium should not be included in the MDS.

(v)

Car parking should not be considered as part of the relevant area of the site.

(vi)

The test is not just visual impact on the Park but also on the purposes of including land in MOL.

(vii)

The opportunity should be taken to refurbish the existing buildings, remove unnecessary hardstanding and enhance the visual attractiveness of the site.

(viii)

The designation and future development of the NSC site would be contrary the protective designations of the area (MOL, conservation area, Grade II* Registered Historic Park and Grade II* listed sports centre)

(ix)

Redevelopment of the site should be controlled through policy criteria in the UDP. The quality of work undertaken elsewhere in the Park leaves the public with no faith in the Councils ability to achieve development sympathetic to its environment.

top of page; contents

Inspector's Reasoning and Conclusions

8.2.1

In paragraphs of this Report I give reasons for my support for the principle of designating MDSs within MOL.

8.2.2

The proposed MDS site in this case comprises a range of sports related buildings with large areas of hardstanding, an elevated walkway and includes areas of open land used for formal and informal recreation. The complex was designed and built mainly in the early 1960s. The Grade II* listed indoor sports centre forms the focus of the complex and stands as a reminder of the heady architectural period of that time. The stadium and Jubilee stand were erected in 1977. With the exception of the walkway alignment with the central axis of the Park, the architecture and layout otherwise make little or no concessions to the Paxton landscape plan.

8.2.3

Given the facts of extensive development (buildings and hardstanding) already on site and the inevitability of its future redevelopment, I consider that the MDS designation is the right way forward, as is recognition of future plans by way of allocation of the site in the Schedule of Proposals Sites. The approach would not preclude refurbishment, but would provide flexibility to achieve an optimum solution.

8.2.4

I recognise the concerns expressed by numerous objectors to the proposed MDS. However, current protective designations, not least the stunning Grade II* listed indoor sports centre, the conservation area status and recognition of the intrinsic worth of the Park through the Grade II* listing in the Register of Parks and Gardens of Special Historic Interest, provide a range of controlling measures that help to preserve the very qualities that warrant those designations. What is more, the MDS allocation should not be regarded as a means of relaxing control over development, but should be viewed as an opportunity to impose control that would assist in achieving the wider regenerative objectives for the Park. Put simply, the MDS allocation, would allow for a comprehensive, controlled consideration of all of the NSC operational areas, with scope for integration of parts of the site with the rest of the Park and other environmental improvements. In my view, the extent of designation proposed could help to restore the unity of the original Paxton layout. This may not be achievable without consideration of the whole operational site. To reduce the extent of the MDS to that suggested by objectors, could compromise not only redevelopment of the site but could also jeopardise long-term aspirations for the Park. In the case of this particular MDS, I agree with the Council's suggested boundary definition.

8.2.5

Indeed, in Annex C PPG2 the advice is to consider the site as a whole whether or not all buildings are to be redeveloped. To allay objectors' fears, it must be said that MDS does not mean more intensive development, nor does it imply loss of the amount of open space currently within the proposed boundaries. Application of the PPG2 criteria would ensure that the MDS area is not occupied by buildings any more than at present and, for the purposes of calculating ground floor areas, car parking and areas of hardstanding would be excluded. The MDS notation would prevent spread of development and control the height of buildings. It would be wrong for me to comment on specific details, such as the whether the stadium should be included in the calculations of aggregate ground floor area. Such specific matters should form part of a planning brief.

8.2.6

The Council's reworded paragraph 8.18a demonstrates that there is every intention to ensure compatibility with the Annex C tests of PPG2. However, I agree with the objectors that the NSC site is of more than Borough significance and that any future redevelopment of the site requires the force of a policy. Local and site circumstances necessitate a specific response, in much the same way that individual policies are included for each of the Biggin Hill Airport MDS. Mere reference to Annex C of PPG2 is inadequate for a site of such importance. A planning brief could be prepared in conjunction with the UDP, as a way of fleshing out the details, but the fundamental principle of how redevelopment or infilling on the site ought to proceed should form the subject of a criteria based policy. There is support in Annex C of PPG2 for setting out a policy for future redevelopment of an MDS.

8.2.7

The policy wording I recommend below is based partly on the reworded paragraph 8.18a as suggested by LBB(ref. ID49) and partly on wording recommended on behalf of Crystal Palace Campaign*. The wording is intended to provide the necessary control without being over-prescriptive and avoids replicating other policy objectives and legislations. I have additionally included a criterion that would tie in any redevelopment proposals with the wider long-term objectives for the Park.

8.2.8

I cannot comment on the quality of schemes permitted by the LBB. However, there are numerous policies and guidance at the Council's disposal to ensure that only developments of good quality design are allowed, particularly in areas of high sensitivity.

top of page; contents

RECOMMENDATIONS

8.2.9

Make no modification to the MDS boundary or to Proposal Site 8 in response to the objections.

8.2.10

Introduce a new policy to be worded along the following lines:

top of page; contents

NATIONAL SPORTS CENTRE MAJOR DEVELOPED SITE (MDS)

Within the National sports Centre, Crystal Park MDS, as shown on the Proposals Map, in addition to complying with the Annex C PPG2 criteria, any infill or redevelopment proposal should:

i.

Improve the openness of the Park or have no greater impact on the purposes of including the NSC land and the Park in MOL;

ii.

not exceed the height of the existing National Sports Centre building or the athletics stadium;

iii.

enhance the visual amenities of the Park landscape;

iv.

contribute to the achievement of the objectives for the long term regeneration of the Park, including integration with the parkland surroundings;

v.

be restricted for indoor or outdoor sporting uses only, with facilities ancillary to those primary uses.

top of page; contents
go to Glossary: for abbreviations found here and elsewhere on the website.

Editor's NOTES

* =my highlight; all others as original
Mrs Ava Wood Dip Arch Architect, is the Public Inquiry Inspector appointed by Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott
PPG2: Planning Policy Guidance 2: Green belts
PPG17: Planning Policy Guidance 17: Planning for open space, sport and recreation
RPG3: Regional Planning Guidance (London)
For more details see Office of the Deputiy Prime Minister website: ODPM

Go to Legal Index; Go to update October 2004

12/9/04 Last Updated 12/9/04

(i)	The site has been MOL for at least 20 years and has been an intrinsic part of the Park for over 70 years. It reflects and meets each of the designation criteria, as set out in RPG3 and the London Plan, as well as reflects GOL's suggested goals for promoting urban quality. No exceptional circumstances have been advanced to justify removal of the site from MOL.
(ii)	The land is neglected but not disused or derelict. The neglect is due partly to the Council's own actions. In any case, the condition of the land is not a reason for removal of its MOL status.
(iii)	Now that there is no imminent commercial development of the site, there is no good reason for removing the MOL designation.
(iv)	The land is highly valued by the local community as part of the Park, and it makes an important contribution to the overall perception of openness. It provides a view into the Park from the public highway; it performs the function of a park for residents over a wide area and provides a natural visual amenity.
(v)	Unlike the majority of the formally landscaped parkland areas of the Park, the top site provides a rural atmosphere with a sense of countryside, magnificent views and sense of space.
(vi)	While the more formal areas of the Park contribute to the area as a cultural asset, there is little in the way of native ground flora. The Top Site has by far the most scrub, woodland, wildflowers and grassland habitat. It is also recognised by LWT as an important feeding and resting point for migrant birds.
(vii)	The current boundary, formed by Crystal Palace Parade, is a logical, defensible and physically defined boundary. The proposed boundary would not possess such attributes. MOL protection at this point would be weakened and the adjoining sites (gardens adjoining traffic lights at Anerley Hill/Crystal Palace Parade junction and Thames Water sites) would become vulnerable.
(viii)	Removal of the land from MOL would be contrary to national policy that seeks to protect open space (PPG17, paras 5, 24, 27, 31 51).

8.1.3	Save for the bus interchange area, the Top Site has a predominantly open character. It is elevated, highly visible from a considerable distance, wooded in parts and indistinguishable from the open and recreational aspects of the Park as a whole, the importance and significance of which spread beyond Bromley. Given the time that has elapsed since the Palace burnt down, and the absence of development on the site since then, this cannot be described as previously developed land. While there may be some debate about the nature conservation or habitat value of the site in metropolitan terms, there is little doubt about its wider historic significance, again in conjunction with the remains of the original Paxton layout.
8.1.4	Given these attributes, it follows that the land proposed for exclusion from the 2DD meets the London Plan criteria for designation. What is more, it performs the MOL function of providing a clear break in the urban fabric and contributes to the green character of London. The current boundary of the MOL is recognisable, defensible and protects the MOL from encroachment. The same cannot be said for the proposed boundary, as there are no obvious or similarly well-defined features to mark the extent of the land to be excluded. The new boundary would not be robust and would expose the vulnerability of adjoining areas of the Park &endash; namely the site of the TV transmitter mast and the Thames Water site.
8.1.5	The Council reasoned that the purpose of removing the MOL designation was to carry forward the proposal in the adopted UDP and to reflect the extant planning permission granted for the leisure development in 1998. It has to be said that since 1987 there have been a number of leisure developments granted permission in the Park. The latest permission however expired in March 2003. I need not emphasise in this Report the conflicts that have arisen in connection with the permitted scheme. The facts are known to all those involved and it would serve no useful purpose for me to reiterate or respond to the well-aired evidence concerning the granting and demise of the 1998 permission. The relevant fact to record is that at the time of the Inquiry it was confirmed that there were no plans before the Council for development on the Top Site.
8.1.6	I agree with the Council that had the leisure scheme been implemented, there may have been grounds for considering release of the site from MOL. However, there is no longer any compelling evidence from the Council or anyone else to suggest that exceptional circumstances exist to justify any change to the MOL boundary at the top end of the Park. Certainly, the present unmanaged state of the land is not a reason for changing the MOL boundary or for allowing development. Instead, as advised in the London Plan, steps should be taken to improve it. In the absence of any, let alone exceptional, reasons for altering the boundary at the Top Site, I support the Council's FIC to retain the land as MOL.

(i)	There is no supporting justification for or research that supports the need for leisure development in the area. No sequential analysis has been undertaken to justify the Top Site as a favoured sustainable location for such a development.
(ii)	Equally, no audit of open space deficiency undertaken to justify removal of the site from the land bank of recreational land.
(iii)	The surrounding areas are poorly served by MOL and rising residential population increases pressure on local green space. Loss of the Top Site to development would be irreversible and would remove a valuable area of land used by a large number of people for informal recreation.
(iv)	The proposed designation reflects a use which completely failed, was universally disliked and would be economically unsustainable. It runs counter to all the ideas and thinking about Parks that have emerged during the 1990s.
(v)	The site is the entry to the South East London Green Chain. A substantial commercial development would be an incongruous physical symbol at the beginning of this cross-borough green initiative.
(vi)	Any development on the site would impact on the integrity of the historic landscape.
(vii)	If an architectural focus or commercial use is to be provided, then it should serve the Park rather than vice versa.
(viii)	The designation pre-empts work carried out by stakeholders and LBB to try to develop a framework for regeneration of the Park.

(i)	The MDS designation should be deleted. It is not an appropriate allocation within an MOL.
(ii)	Buildings can be refurbished without the MDS allocation.
(iii)	The MDS boundary is too widely drawn, which could lead to a spread of buildings across what is now open land and substantially increase the footprints of buildings, particularly to the north and west.
(iv)	The stadium should not be included in the MDS.
(v)	Car parking should not be considered as part of the relevant area of the site.
(vi)	The test is not just visual impact on the Park but also on the purposes of including land in MOL.
(vii)	The opportunity should be taken to refurbish the existing buildings, remove unnecessary hardstanding and enhance the visual attractiveness of the site.
(viii)	The designation and future development of the NSC site would be contrary the protective designations of the area (MOL, conservation area, Grade II* Registered Historic Park and Grade II* listed sports centre)
(ix)	Redevelopment of the site should be controlled through policy criteria in the UDP. The quality of work undertaken elsewhere in the Park leaves the public with no faith in the Councils ability to achieve development sympathetic to its environment.

8.2.1	In paragraphs of this Report I give reasons for my support for the principle of designating MDSs within MOL.
8.2.2	The proposed MDS site in this case comprises a range of sports related buildings with large areas of hardstanding, an elevated walkway and includes areas of open land used for formal and informal recreation. The complex was designed and built mainly in the early 1960s. The Grade II* listed indoor sports centre forms the focus of the complex and stands as a reminder of the heady architectural period of that time. The stadium and Jubilee stand were erected in 1977. With the exception of the walkway alignment with the central axis of the Park, the architecture and layout otherwise make little or no concessions to the Paxton landscape plan.
8.2.3	Given the facts of extensive development (buildings and hardstanding) already on site and the inevitability of its future redevelopment, I consider that the MDS designation is the right way forward, as is recognition of future plans by way of allocation of the site in the Schedule of Proposals Sites. The approach would not preclude refurbishment, but would provide flexibility to achieve an optimum solution.
8.2.4	I recognise the concerns expressed by numerous objectors to the proposed MDS. However, current protective designations, not least the stunning Grade II* listed indoor sports centre, the conservation area status and recognition of the intrinsic worth of the Park through the Grade II* listing in the Register of Parks and Gardens of Special Historic Interest, provide a range of controlling measures that help to preserve the very qualities that warrant those designations. What is more, the MDS allocation should not be regarded as a means of relaxing control over development, but should be viewed as an opportunity to impose control that would assist in achieving the wider regenerative objectives for the Park. Put simply, the MDS allocation, would allow for a comprehensive, controlled consideration of all of the NSC operational areas, with scope for integration of parts of the site with the rest of the Park and other environmental improvements. In my view, the extent of designation proposed could help to restore the unity of the original Paxton layout. This may not be achievable without consideration of the whole operational site. To reduce the extent of the MDS to that suggested by objectors, could compromise not only redevelopment of the site but could also jeopardise long-term aspirations for the Park. In the case of this particular MDS, I agree with the Council's suggested boundary definition.
8.2.5	Indeed, in Annex C PPG2 the advice is to consider the site as a whole whether or not all buildings are to be redeveloped. To allay objectors' fears, it must be said that MDS does not mean more intensive development, nor does it imply loss of the amount of open space currently within the proposed boundaries. Application of the PPG2 criteria would ensure that the MDS area is not occupied by buildings any more than at present and, for the purposes of calculating ground floor areas, car parking and areas of hardstanding would be excluded. The MDS notation would prevent spread of development and control the height of buildings. It would be wrong for me to comment on specific details, such as the whether the stadium should be included in the calculations of aggregate ground floor area. Such specific matters should form part of a planning brief.
8.2.6	The Council's reworded paragraph 8.18a demonstrates that there is every intention to ensure compatibility with the Annex C tests of PPG2. However, I agree with the objectors that the NSC site is of more than Borough significance and that any future redevelopment of the site requires the force of a policy. Local and site circumstances necessitate a specific response, in much the same way that individual policies are included for each of the Biggin Hill Airport MDS. Mere reference to Annex C of PPG2 is inadequate for a site of such importance. A planning brief could be prepared in conjunction with the UDP, as a way of fleshing out the details, but the fundamental principle of how redevelopment or infilling on the site ought to proceed should form the subject of a criteria based policy. There is support in Annex C of PPG2 for setting out a policy for future redevelopment of an MDS.
8.2.7	The policy wording I recommend below is based partly on the reworded paragraph 8.18a as suggested by LBB(ref. ID49) and partly on wording recommended on behalf of Crystal Palace Campaign*. The wording is intended to provide the necessary control without being over-prescriptive and avoids replicating other policy objectives and legislations. I have additionally included a criterion that would tie in any redevelopment proposals with the wider long-term objectives for the Park.
8.2.8	I cannot comment on the quality of schemes permitted by the LBB. However, there are numerous policies and guidance at the Council's disposal to ensure that only developments of good quality design are allowed, particularly in areas of high sensitivity.

8.2.9	Make no modification to the MDS boundary or to Proposal Site 8 in response to the objections.
8.2.10	Introduce a new policy to be worded along the following lines:

i.	Improve the openness of the Park or have no greater impact on the purposes of including the NSC land and the Park in MOL;
ii.	not exceed the height of the existing National Sports Centre building or the athletics stadium;
iii.	enhance the visual amenities of the Park landscape;
iv.	contribute to the achievement of the objectives for the long term regeneration of the Park, including integration with the parkland surroundings;
v.	be restricted for indoor or outdoor sporting uses only, with facilities ancillary to those primary uses.