Bromley Unitary
Development Plan Proof of Philip
Kolvin Crystal Palace
Park Crystal Palace
Campaign Section
13
"Crystal Palace offers a unique opportunity to view sculptures against the sky."
Antony Gormley, sculptor.
13 National and Regional
Guidance 13.1 In tandem with the more
developed thinking associated with urban parks, national
planning policy has been reinforcing the protection which
they enjoy. RPG 9 (Regional
Planning Guidance for the South East) 13.2 This recognises that
sustainable development must underpin modern approaches to
planning, and that we cannot simply follow the models of the
past.[90] 13.3 Policy Q2 states that the
quality of life should be raised through significant
improvement to the urban environment. A series of
recommendations for development plans is given,
including: 13.4 Further: 13.5 The Guidance reiterates
the importance of Metropolitan Open
Land.[93] RPG3: Strategic
Guidance for London Planning Authorities
(1996) 13.6 The objectives of this
Guidance include maintaining and improving the natural and
open environment, including Green Belt and MOL, and
improving the quality and attractiveness of the urban
environment.[94] 13.7 The Guidance referred back
to Sustainable Development - the UK Strategy, the growth of
Local Agenda 21, and the need to ensure that future planning
activity incorporates measures to contribute to
sustainability.[95] Consequent upon this the
Guidance sets its face against out of centre, car-dependent
leisure and entertainment facilities.[96] 13.8 The Guidance specifically
refers to its green spaces as being among London's greatest
assets. It notes that the concept of Metropolitan Open Land
was first recognised in 1989 regional guidance[97],
and has provided protection to large areas of open land in
London. It endorsed a positive approach to open spaces, in
order to enhance their character and
value.[98] 13.9 Important guidance is
given in relation to Metropolitan Open Land: "7.8: Land of this
importance should not be used for developments which
compromise its open character and value to London's green
setting. The principles of control over development in
the Green Belt, set out in PPG2, also apply to MOL. There
is a presumption against inappropriate development
including development which would be harmful to the open
character of the land. Such development should only be
allowed in very special circumstances. However, as MOL
encompasses a wide range of sites and locations, limited
development to serve the needs of the visiting public may
not be considered inappropriate development if clearly
ancillary to the identified purpose of the MOL. Boroughs
should assess the effects of such developments on the MOL
and its environment, including the arrangements made for
access by sustainable means of transport. Where proposals
for other development are prepared, such as wider
recreation facilities for which there is great public
demand, they should be dealt with through a specific
alteration to the UDP which enables all the issues to be
clearly and publicly addressed." 13.10 It is worth noting that
Crystal Palace Park fulfils all of the criteria for
designation in paragraph 7.7. There is no evidence of "great
public demand" for commercial leisure facilities,
particularly of a substantial built variety, on the top
site, in the sense set out in paragraph 7.8. 13.11 The Guidance advocates
inclusion of land use policies in UDPs which support efforts
to improve the nature conservation and landscape character
and quality of MOL, and also policies which exploit
opportunities for the outdoor recreational use of MOL,
including increased public access.[99] 13.12 The Guidance set out the
Government Office for London's suggested goals for promoting
urban quality. These include: well-designed and visually
rich; quality open space; distinctive place and identity;
human scale skyline and wonderful views; a rich mix of uses;
ease of accessibility; high amenity value especially in
heritage areas; pedestrian-friendly environments; safe and
sustainable environments; and well managed land. Crystal
Palace Park has the potential to contribute to all of these
goals. PPG2 - Green Belt
(1995) 13.13 The equation of MOL with
Green Belt brings in the provisions of PPG2. 13.14 Paragraph 2.6 of PPG2 says
that detailed Green Belt boundaries in approved development
plans should be altered only exceptionally. It states that
"detailed boundaries should not be altered or development
allowed merely because the land has become
derelict." 13.15 The importance of this is
obvious. The proper policy response to degraded Green Belt
land is not to build over it, but to work to improve it. In
particular where means and mechanisms are available for this
to happen, there can be no justification for simply removing
MOL designation. PPG12 - Development
Plans (1999) 13.16 This Guidance stated that
development plans should be drawn up so as to take
environmental considerations comprehensively and
consistently into account. As part of that, it stated that
there should be policies and proposals for the improvement
of the physical and natural environment, making provision
for open spaces. PPG17 - Planning for
Open Space, Sport and Recreaion (2002) 13.17 This guidance reflects
some of the thinking over the last decade, pointing out that
open space provision can support urban renaissance, social
inclusion and community cohesion, health and well-being and
sustainable development.[100] 13.18 It recommended proper
needs assessments and audits of open space, leading to clear
strategies.[101] 13.19 Para 10 gives a salutary
message: 13.20 Further, para 11 states
that open space that is of particular value to local
communities should be recognised and given protection by
local authorities through appropriate policies in plans. It
has been unequivocally demonstrated over the last 6 years
that the open space at the top of Crystal Palace Park is of
particular value to the local community. 13.21 The following guidance is
also highly pertinent: 13.22 In the case of Crystal
Palace top-site, Annex C of PPG3 would in any event have
excluded it from the definition of "previously developed."
It states: 13.23 Paragraph 16 of the
Guidance warns against insensitive or incremental
development. Proposals should be considered in terms of loss
of open space as against benefit to the community.
Small-scale facilities supporting the recreational use, such
as cafes and toilets, might be supported. All proposed
development should be sensitive to the local
context. 13.24 Para 17
provides: "Local authorities
should: (i) avoid any erosion
of recreational function and maintain or enhance
the character of open spaces; (ii) ensure that open
spaces do not suffer from increased overlooking,
traffic flows or other
encroachment
. (iii) consider the
impact of any development on biodiversity and
nature conservation." 13.25 Paragraph 18 indicates
that where provision is of poor quality, this should not be
taken to demonstrate an absence of need. Local authorities
should work to improve the value of existing
facilities. 13.26 It is right to point out
that to take an area of non-town centre open space of
heritage value which is highly prized by the local community
and to designate it for built commercial leisure development
without a study either of demand in the borough or
demonstrable local support is inimical to the entire
thinking of regional and national planning policy. When that
land is also designated MOL, and the proposal involves the
stripping away of its designation, one would require to see
a very high level of justification, which is completely
absent here. 13.27 A further dimension has
arisen through the London Mayor. 13.28 The Mayor published the
draft London Plan in June 2002. The introduction stresses
that the South East and Eastern Regions have strongly
emphasized the need inter alia to protect green field sites.
The underlying philosophy of the Plan is therefore to
accommodate growth within London's own boundaries and
"without encroaching on London's own precious green
spaces."[103] This philosophy is reflected in the
policies of the Plan.[104] 13.29 Policy 3D.8 sets out the
Mayor's policy of protecting London's network of open space,
and to realise the current and potential benefit of open
space to communities. It exhorts boroughs to encourage
functional and physical linkages within the open space
network and to enhance accessibility, based on local and
strategic need. 13.30 The commentary not only
underlines the many benefits of open space, but makes the
important point that, as London becomes more compact and
intensive in its built form, the value of the open spaces
will increase. In that context, it is worth pointing out
that the Plan specifies a target for additional homes in the
five boroughs around the Park of 104,260 over the period
1997-2016, 23% of the total housing target for
London.[105] The commentary also stresses that poor
quality is no reason in itself to justify the loss of open
spaces. 13.31 Policy 3D.9 encourages
boroughs to use standards, as set out in the open space
hierarchy, to identify broad areas of public open space
deficiency. 13.32 Policy 3D.10 is
unequivocal in its protection to Metropolitan Open
Land: 13.33 The Policy also advocates
the protection of Green Chains. 13.34 The commentary sets out a
number of criteria for the designation of areas of
MOL:[106] 13.35 Crystal Palace Park in
fact satisfies all of the above criteria for inclusion as
MOL. 13.36 The Examination in Public
Panel Report agreed the general thrust of the policy, while
making a number of suggestions regarding
drafting.[107] In paragraph 2.31, the Report
stated: London: Cultural
Capital (2003) 13.37 The Mayor's draft Culture
Strategy strongly reiterates the high value placed on
London's parks as places for social activity and relaxation.
It deplores the pared back maintenance of such spaces and
advocates their regeneration, not least because they are an
important part of London's heritage and cultural life. It
recommends ensuring that planners fully appreciate the
economic and social benefits to be obtained from creating
and preserving green spaces.[108] PPG6 - Town Centres and
Retail Developments (1996) 13.38 This Guidance advocated a
sequential approach to retail development, starting with
town centres, then edge of centre, then out of centre
locations accessible by a choice of transport. The approach
is applicable to commercial leisure uses.[109] The
Guidance advocates that the sequential approach should be
reflected in development plans, after considering the need
for new development.[110] Thus, before concluding
that it is proper to designate a non-town centre site for
commercial leisure, there ought to be research or some other
finding that such uses cannot be accommodated in the town
centre. I am unaware that any such study has been carried
out by Bromley. 13.39 Of course, national policy
advocating a sequential approach and national policy
advocating protection of parks and open space go hand in
hand. It is by shepherding intensive commercial uses to town
centres while preserving Green Belt and MOL that we produce
sustainable environments for the benefit of all.
"maximise the
positive contribution which trees, other planting and
open spaces can make to urban areas in terms of their
recreational, nature conservation and wider environmental
and social benefits".[91]
"it is important
to maximise the essential contribution which open spaces
can make to urban
areas in terms of their
benefits for wildlife habitats, recreational and cultural
value and wider environmental and social
benefits."[92]
"7.7: MOL has
been recognised as land of predominantly open character
which has more than a Borough significance, generally
because of its size and catchment area. The main criteria
for MOL designation are:
"Existing open
space
. should not be built on unless an assessment
has been undertaken which has clearly shown the open
space
to be surplus to requirements. For open
space "surplus to requirements" should include
consideration of all the functions that open space can
perform
. Developers will need to consult the local
community and demonstrate that their proposals are widely
supported by them."
"Parks
.
must not be regarded as "previously developed land" as
defined in Annex C of PPG3. Even where land does fall
within the definition of "previously developed", its
existing and potential value for recreation and other
purposes should be properly assessed before development
is considered."[102]
"Also excluded is
land that was previously developed but where the remains
of any structure or activity have blended into the
landscape in the process of time (to the extent that it
can reasonably be considered as part of the natural
surroundings) and where there is a clear reason that
could outweigh the re-use of the site - such as its
contribution to nature conservation - or it has
subsequently been put to an amenity use and cannot be
regarded as requiring redevelopment."
"The Mayor will
and boroughs should resist development on Metropolitan
Open Land (MOL) unless it is clearly ancillary to the
enjoyment of the open space. Ancillary uses will only be
acceptable where they do not have an adverse impact on
the openness of MOL.
.."
"There is strong
support for the policies protecting MOL, which is clearly
regarded as essential to maintaining the quality of
London's environment."
Top
of Section;
Previous
Section (12);
Next
Section (14);
Contents
Notes:
[90] - Para 2.5
[91] - Q2, a vii
[92] - Q2 b iii
[93] - Para 6.5
[94] - Para 1.14
[95] - Para 1.30
[96] - Para 3.27
[97] - In fact, it originated in the Greater London
Development Plan in 1976: see para 17.2 below.
[98] - Para 7.2
[99] - Para 7.10
[100] - Introduction
[101] - Para 1
[102] - Para 14
[103] - Introduction paragraph 17
[104] - Appendix 32.
[105] - Table 3A.1. Lambeth 28,910; Southwark 29,530;
Lewisham 17,350; Bromley 11,450; Croydon 17,020. Total for London
457,950.
[106] - Para 3D.47
[107] - Appendix 33.
[108] - Pages 115-116. Appendix 34.
[109] - Para 1.15
[110] - Para 1.10
©Philip Kolvin