Bromley Unitary
Development Plan Proof of Philip
Kolvin Crystal Palace
Park Crystal Palace
Campaign Section
2
"The right to play is a child's first claim on the community. No community can infringe that right without doing deep and enduring harm to the minds and bodies of its citizens."
David Lloyd George
2 The Crystal Palace
Campaign 2.1 The Campaign is an
organisation which came into being in May 1997 to oppose a
multiplex cinema on the top site at Crystal Palace Park. The
building was to be 52,000 sq. m., being 285 x 60m on 3
floors, the top floor being a 950 space car park accessed by
vehicle ramps passing across the front of the building; the
middle floor being 14 pubs/bars etc. together with 2
commercial leisure units; the ground floor being a 20 screen
multiplex cinema with 4,800 seats, together with a further
commercial leisure unit. The building was widely opposed.
Elevation drawings and a CAD illustration are shown at
appendix 3. 2.2 The list of opponents to
the development was an extremely formidable one, including a
plethora of national, regional and local organisations.
Perhaps most pertinently, it included 40,000 individuals who
signed petitions against the scheme. It is worth setting out
the list, as a reminder of the strength of feeling which a
large commercial leisure use of this site has previously
engendered. National/regional
organisations Local government
organisations Elected
representatives European National London Local
councillors Other politicians and
political organisations Local heritage, amenity,
business and residents' organisations Organisations concerned
with the environment Protest groups 2.3 While, of course, the
Unitary Development Plan inquiry is not the place to debate
the merits of the multiplex scheme, it is instructive to
consider the reasons why local people objected so
passionately to the scheme, since this indicates the likely
reaction to a further proposal for commercial leisure
development of the site. Of course, different groups
objected for different reasons, and the priorities amongst
groups may have varied. Broadly, the reasons included the
following. 1 The loss of open
parkland. The ridge at Crystal Palace affords
superb views over London, Kent and Surrey. It
affords a sense of space and openness, unrivalled,
probably, between here and Parliament Hill. The
value of the Park as open space is reflected in its
designation as Metropolitan Open Land. 2 The domination of
the remaining area of the Park by a substantial
building, standing at the head of the Park and
occupying the main part of the ridge. 3 The introduction
of commercial activities into what is seen as a
community park. It is probably a truism to say that
the Park has a park-like atmosphere. But it does
have a tranquil air far removed from the bustle of
urban living. The atmosphere of the Park is partly
the reason why the major part of it it has long
been designated a Conservation Area. Indeed, the
areas around the Park are Conservation Areas,
having been designated at separate times by four
local authorities. The description in the Dulwich
Conservation Area Statement of the climb through
wooded streets to the ridge and the view
beyond[4] will resonate with all who live
in this area. 4 The Park is rich
in history, having been the site of the relocated
Crystal Palace. It moved here in 1854 from Hyde
Park, and stood until it burned to the ground in
1936. The chief remaining features of that great
project are Paxton's terraces, which are listed
structures. The Park itself, which represents a
major example of Victorian Park landscaping, and
one of Paxton's major works, is a Grade II* Listed
Park, on the English Heritage Register of Historic
Parks and Gardens. There was a widespread feeling
that a multiplex cinema with a bowling alley, a
health and fitness club and (possibly if not
probably) a video arcade, is a wholly inappropriate
response to the site's historical connotations.
There is still a great feeling of local pride about
the Palace, and many were simply heartbroken that
the site could be used in this way. 5 There was a major
concern about traffic. The Park stands in the heart
of a residential area. There are no strategic roads
feeding this development, and the site is
approached by a series of narrow Victorian streets.
While there is public transport to the area, it was
undeniable that by far the greatest visitation to
the site would have been by car. Indeed, for this
reason, the Select Committee on the Environment
singled out the Crystal Palace multiplex
development as a particularly acute example of poor
transportation planning. 6 The tree-lined
ridge is the highest such ridge in London, and was
protected as a skyline view by Bromley's Unitary
Development Plan, adopted in 1994. The community
was deeply concerned that the trees, and therefore
the view, were to be lost and replaced with a high
parapet wall, safety rails, lift shafts, car ramps,
plant units and car roofs. 7 There was a
widespread fear of night-time noise, disorder,
litter etc. associated with late night
uses. 8 The effect on
local trade. The local high street, the Crystal
Palace Triangle, is little more than a village high
street, heavily dependent on its night-time
economy. The traders were concerned that the
multiplex, with its rooftop car park, would
seriously impact on the trade which is the fulcrum
of this local community. The London Planning
Advisory Committee (the statutory body which, until
1st July 2000, advised the Secretary of State and
the boroughs on strategic planning matters) advised
that the development would overwhelm Upper Norwood.
9 The building was
widely disliked. I have never heard anybody, even
from Bromley, actually say they liked it. The
building represented to local people a triumph of
function over form. The huge, unarticulated, flat
roof was dictated by the decision of the developer
to save money by not digging out an underground car
park. The windowless ground floor was because of
the cinemas at that level. The huge, free-standing
vehicle ramps passing around three sides of the
building and up to the roof proclaimed the
utilitarian nature of the structure. In a suburb of
Victorian houses, a park and a village high street,
this was a discordant intrusion. 10 The introduction
of highways infrastructure into the Park was widely
opposed. At the northernmost end of the
development, there was to be a new road from
Crystal Palace Parade into the Park, leading to a
roundabout in the Park, so that cars could come
round to the beginning of the ramp. From Anerley
Hill, there was a major new entrance into the Park,
involving the creation of extra lanes of traffic, a
signal-controlled junction, a bellmouth entrance, a
large concrete tunnel with retaining walls etc. The
tunnel was to drive right through the Park so as to
emerge onto the beginning of the southerly vehicle
ramp. 11 Loss of
ecological interest on site. I am unaware of any
formal study having been carried out by Bromley,
but the London Wildlife Trust carried out a study
in 1997, demonstrating that the ridge top and upper
terrace supports the highest diversity of wildlife
in the Park, with over 150 species of vascular
plant recorded, a rare habitat of acid grassland,
75 species of birds including Amber and Red List
members, and 25 breeding species, four nationally
Notable invertebrates and so
on.[5] 2.4 The Campaign was a
deliberately loose, unconstituted, grouping of individuals
who built coalitions against the development and worked
vigorously, though always lawfully, through legal action,
direct action, media coverage, political lobbying and action
etc., achieving national renown in the process. 2.5 The Campaign was extremely
widely supported. I attribute this to four things. First,
the strength of feeling about the issue itself. Second, the
fact that we conducted an entirely lawful campaign, and were
committed only to lawful action. Thus, individuals from all
sectors of society felt comfortable in supporting us. Third,
our commitment to a participative process in deciding what
should be the future of the site. Fourth, the total
unwillingness of the main protagonists, Bromley Council,
London & Regional Properties and UCI Cinemas, to respond
meaningfully to the profound concerns of the
community. 2.6 The milestones of the
Campaign were as follows: May
1997 Campaign
established by four Crystal Palace
residents. July
1997 Public meeting.
Approx. 600 local residents attend to hear Bromley
officers and scheme architect speak in favour of
the development. Residents vote 600 to 1 against
the development. March
1998 Bromley grant
planning permission. March
1998 Public meeting.
600 attend. Public donate £25,000 to permit
legal challenge to planning permission. May
1998 Campaign,
together with 9 other residential and amenity
groups, publish the People's Park, a consultative
document inviting partnership with Bromley to work
up a sustainable scheme for the regeneration of
Crystal Palace. The London Planning Advisory
Committee supports it. Bromley ignore
it. August
1998 Campaign public
meetings in Dulwich, Sydenham and Norwood on
consecutive nights. About 1,200 attend. October
1998 New web-site
established. 55,000 visits so far. December
1998 Court of Appeal
dismisses legal challenge. The Crystal Palace Act
1990, which requires the new building to reflect
the architectural style of the old, does not
actually require the new building to look like the
old. March
1999 March to Downing
Street, petition handed in April
1999 Right Honourable
Tessa Jowell MP asks Campaign to run public meeting
for her to canvass local views. 1,500 attend and
vote unanimously against the building. July
1999 Party in the
Park. September
1999 Lord Weatherill
offers support for Campaign at public meeting,
together with Jean Lambert MEP. September
1999 Developer writes
offering stakeholders forum. It subsequently
reneges, despite intervention by Tessa
Jowell. October
1999 March from
Crystal Palace to demonstration outside UCI's
Empire Leicester Square. 700 attend
demonstration. October
1999 Campaign
establishes consultative process to take
stakeholders forum forward. It forms a "group of
groups" with a total of 14 heritage and residents'
associations and amenity groups, speaks at local
schools and invites views through newsletter drops
and web-site. November
1999 Jean Lambert MEP
presents petition to European Parliament, on behalf
of local people. February
2000 National anti-UCI
day. Protesters demonstrate outside over 30 UCI
cinemas from Clydebank to Poole. March
2000 Public meeting
for Mayoral candidates. 1,000 attend. All mayoral
candidates, including Livingstone (independent),
Conservative, Labour, Lib-Dem., Green and Christian
People's Alliance come out against the proposals.
Livingstone, Phillips (Labour), Johnson (Green)
attend meeting. November
2000 Developer applies
for 14 pub licences for development. Campaign
organises professional opposition. One pub licence
is granted, together with a series of restaurant
licences. January
2001 Campaign
distributes Alternative Prospectus to 100 largest
food and drink companies in UK, explaining the
economic and PR deficits of renting space in
multiplex. May
2001 Developer
withdraws, Bromley sues. July
2001 Campaign,
together with local groups, propose charitable
Trust, to raise funds for Park and consult re.
proposals. Bromley refuse to discuss. September
2001 London Borough of
Southwark formally congratulates the Campaign on
the defeat of the multiplex and instructs officers
to work with Campaign and others to ensure the
Park's protection and enhancement in accordance
with the wishes of local
residents.[6] May
2002 Campaign
publishes results of large formal consultation
exercise, 'Consultation Starts Here'[7],
showing strong support for parkland uses of top
site. June
2002 Campaign
inaugurates facilitated stakeholders forum. Bromley
subscribes. January
2003 European
Commission announces it is to bring infringement
proceedings on the Campaign's complaint against the
UK Government in the European Court of Justice over
Bromley's failure to direct Environmental
Assessment at outline or reserved matters
stage.[8] 2.7 After defeating the
multiplex proposal, we deliberately wound down the Campaign,
so as to concentrate on a small number of targeted
objectives, the retention of the planning designation of the
Park being the main one. However, when the Campaign was in
full flow, the steering group consisted of approximately 12
local residents. Support then radiated out from there. For
example, there were approximately 100 registered newsletter
distributors, who distributed 40,000 newsletters
approximately 3 times per year. There were over 2,000
financial supporters. We also worked with other groups. For
example, we established a group of groups with heritage,
residential and amenity societies so that we could pool our
experiences and concerns relating to Crystal Palace: this
was attended by approximately 10 local groups. We also
worked with other protest groups on specific events, e.g.
our Crystal Palace - Leicester Square march and our national
Boycott UCI day, on both of which we worked with the Boycott
UCI Group. 2.8 As a Campaign, we have
always tried to find a positive angle to our work, and to
build unity. We repeatedly invited the London Borough of
Bromley to meet with us, and to see whether we could find
common ground. The London Borough of Bromley declined such
invitations over a number of years, preferring to forge
ahead with its plans. During this period we carried out two
exercises in public consultation, and even succeeded in
persuading the developer to join a stakeholders forum,
although the developer reneged shortly thereafter. We wrote
a blueprint for the top-site "The People's Park", based
around a sculpture park, to which nine local organisations
subscribed. As stated above, we founded a "group of groups"
to enable local amenity societies from around the Park to
meet and discuss issues of common concern, and so
on. 2.9 However, from the time the
multiplex cinema was defeated in May 2001, we redoubled our
efforts to build unity, fearing that otherwise the park
would continue to languish. We proposed a community trust to
raise funds for the Park and act as a consultation body for
future plans, although we could not persuade the London
Borough of Bromley to subscribe to the idea. We therefore
realised that we would need, effectively, to take
responsibility and carry out the role which Bromley should
have been exercising, by conducting a large formal
consultation exercise (see below) and founding a proper
community forum. 2.10 We have at all times
worked very hard to bring the political and residential
community together. One of the main problems for the Park is
that it lies on the fringes of five boroughs, and clearly is
not a political priority for any of them. The fact that
local authorities have no statutory responsibilities for
park maintenance adds to its difficulties. This is
exacerbated by the fact that the size and dilapidated state
of the Park presents some acute problems. On top of that, it
is fair to say that while the Park lies within Bromley, the
vast majority of the users do not live there. Consequently,
it has not always been easy for Bromley to understand the
concerns and priorities of residents of other boroughs, and
no doubt it is still harder to argue for a prioritisation of
resources towards this inherited park. On the community's
side, the Park serves residential areas of widely differing
social circumstances, and with widely different needs. It is
of course a large task to try to regenerate the Park in a
way which meets the aspirations of all. 2.11 To try to address some of
these problems, and to ensure that there is no repeat of the
damaging conflict brought about by the multiplex proposals,
we devised, financed and convened a workshop to which all
stakeholders were invited, presided over by an independent
facilitator from the Environment Council. The workshop has
taken root, and has been running for over a year, financed
by many bodies including the London Development Agency
(using Single Regeneration Budget funds), the Campaign, the
London Borough of Bromley and the other boroughs, and
various heritage and amenity groups. The plenary sessions
have been attended by representatives of several dozen
groups and local, regional and national organisations,
including English Heritage and Sport England. There have
also been strategic working groups and management working
groups which have looked at various issues concerning the
Park and its future. To its credit, Bromley's then leader,
Michael Tickner, committed the Council to working from a
blank sheet of paper. Bromley's persistence in attempting to
remove the protective designation of the top site and to
designate the Sports Centre a Major Developed Site are an
unfortunate contradiction to that assurance, but nonetheless
its apparent commitment to the process of stakeholder
working remains.
Top of
Section; Previous
Section (1);
Next
Section (3);
Contents
Notes:
[3] - Throughout this
document, the London Borough of Bromley is referred to as
Bromley.
[4] - See Section 8: Dulwich Wood Conservation Area.
[5] - Crystal Palace Park, A Survey and Assessment of the
Nature Conservation Value of the Ridge Top and Upper Terrace, London
Wildlife Trust, 2 ed., 1997
[6] - Appendix 7
[7] - Appendix 2
[8] - See Press release, Appendix 8
©Philip Kolvin