Bromley Unitary
Development Plan Proof of Philip
Kolvin Crystal Palace
Park Crystal Palace
Campaign Section
14
Near a population weary of labour yet thirsting for knowledge.
John Ruskin, of Crystal Palace Park.
14 Other UDP
Policies 14.1 There are many policies in
the draft Unitary Development Plan which are supportive of
the preservation of green space, the enhancement of the
natural environment, and the protection of heritage assets.
These policies are themselves strong arguments for retention
of the top site as Metropolitan Open Land and attaching to
it a strategic statement which recognises and fosters its
green and heritage credentials. 14.2 In paragraph 2.20 of the
Plan, reference is made to the basic principles of
sustainable development. These are said to include an
emphasis on town centre locations for most forms of retail
and leisure development and a stronger emphasis on
protecting and, where opportunities arise, improving the
natural environment. It is also said that in the longer term
sustainable development will mean seeking to live more
within the area's environmental capacity and enhancing
environmental resources for future generations. The top site
at Crystal Palace Park is a location where this basic
approach might be tested. If the Council's preferred
designation prevails, these basic principles will have been
violated. 14.3 Paragraph 2.23 refers to
the Council's Local Agenda 21 Strategy, Blueprint for a
Better Bromley, to which I have referred in section 10
above. 14.4 Chapter 3, para 3.6, sets
out the Council's Green Belt and Open Space objective, to
protect Metropolitan Open Land and the Green Belt from
inappropriate development, encourage greater access, and
promote their use for outdoor recreation. This is
irreconcilable with a commercial leisure designation. The
objective is also to enhance Metropolitan Land through
active management and advice. That, unfortunately, is not a
precept that has been followed by the Council in respect of
the top site. Had it been, and had the top site been
sensitively woven into the fabric of the Park, I very much
doubt whether there would ever been this debate as to
whether it should now been built upon. 14.5 Similarly, paragraph 3.7
sets out the Council's recreation objectives, which include
the maintenance, promotion and enhancement of public access
for enjoyment of the Borough's open land. Again, this is a
principle which ought to be followed in respect of the top
site. 14.6 The protection of green
space of course goes hand in hand with a sequential approach
to the location of shopping and commercial leisure
facilities, the sequential approach being emphasised in
paragraph 3.9. 14.7 Policy BE11 of the Plan,
and the supporting text, refers to historic parks and
gardens and shows Crystal Palace Park as the only Grade II*
Park in the Borough. It recognises inclusion in the Register
of Parks and Gardens of Special Historical Interest as
denoting parks of importance, in the national context, to
England's cultural heritage, and to encourage their
appreciation, maintenance and enhancement. It recognises
that Grade II* Parks are those of great historic interest.
It would be of surprise to most, I think, to learn that the
Council was proposing to remove all open space protection
from a large, prominent plot in such a park, while promoting
a commercial leisure development in its place. The refusal
to give a site description which pays any heed to the
heritage or parkland importance of the site may be
considered perplexing. 14.8 In Chapter 8, Green Belt
and Open Space, the Council reiterates its commitment to the
preservation and enhancement of such land. Paragraph 8.6 was
subject to an important revision during the evolution of the
Plan: 14.9 Even leaving aside the
current designation of the top site as Metropolitan Open
Land, its value to the community has been forcibly
demonstrated through over six years of passionate defence by
the community of this site, which has been to every level of
Court in the land, the UK Parliament, the European
Commission, European Parliament and European Court of
Justice, amongst other places. Bromley's insistence, in the
face of such an articulate show of care and affection for
this open space, flies in the face of its UDP commitment to
protection of such sites. 14.10 Paragraph 8.7 recommends
that green chain sites, of more than Borough significance,
should be designated MOL. Thus, were the top site not
already designated MOL, the suggestion is that it should be
so designated. To remove the designation clearly runs
counter to this advice. 14.11 Paragraph 8.17 refers to
paragraph 7.7 of RPG3, which sets out criteria for
designation of MOL.6 As I have already indicated, the top
site meets all of these criteria. 14.12 Chapter 9 of the Plan
deals with Recreation, Leisure and Tourism. Policy L2
supports recreational uses on MOL sites, particularly in the
Green Chain. This again echoes the Council's commitment not
to abandon MOL designations but to reinforce them by
promoting appropriate outdoor uses. Paragraph 9.10 sensibly
states that such land is a significant resource for meeting
informal, low-key recreational needs. 14.13 Policy L9 refers to areas
of Open Space Deficiency, and states that the Council will
seek to secure improvements in the amount and distribution
of, and access to, open space in areas of deficiency
identified by the Council. 14.14 Paragraph 9.22 states that
the old London Planning Advisory Committee hierarchy had
been used7 and that the areas of open space deficiency were
shown on the Areas of Local and District Park Deficiency
Map. I queried with the Council what analysis of deficiency
it had carried out. On 16th September 2003, I was informed
in writing by the Council8 that the relevant map was the
last in the A3 proposals map booklet of March 2001. However,
that map is a map showing Areas of Local Park Deficiency
only. There is no reference to District Parks. This does
seem to be a lacuna and inconsistency in the
Plan. 14.15 Be that as it may, the map
does show areas of deficiency to the east and south of the
Park. While I acknowledge that these relate to local parks,
nonetheless it does not seem to be a counsel of perfection
to remove any accessible open space from areas of
deficiency. 14.16 Policy L10 sets out a
sequential test for indoor recreation and leisure. The
Council has plainly carried out no sequential test before
attempting to designate the top site for commercial leisure.
I know of no compelling reason for breaching that approach
here, particularly where it involves the concomitant removal
of a Metropolitan Open Land designation. 14.17 Chapter 11 deals with town
centres and shopping. Policy S6 sets out a proper sequential
approach, whereby retail and leisure development outside
existing town centres are not normally to be permitted,
unless it can be shown that there is a need for the proposal
which cannot be met within town centres. No such need has
been demonstrated or, seemingly, analysed by the Council
before electing to designate the top site for commercial
leisure. The policy continues by stating that even where the
sequential test is met, proposals should not be sited on
MOL, or even on Urban Open Space. The succeeding commentary
reinforces that general approach, placing the onus on the
developer to demonstrate why the town centre cannot be used
for the development, requiring the developer to demonstrate
need, pointing out that there is sufficient scope within the
town centres to accommodate retail and leisure floorspace,
and requiring flexibility in terms of format, design, scale
and parking requirements. I do not understand how the
Council can, on the one hand, apply these strictures to a
developer while, on the other hand, failing to apply them to
itself. 14.18 In summary, the Council's
proposals in respect of the top site produce a disjuncture
with the fundamental thrust of the remainder of the Plan. It
appears that the Council has taken an a priori decision to
designate the site as it has, without first seeing whether
it can be reconciled with the other Plan policies. When such
an analysis is undertaken, it is quite plain that
reconciliation is impossible. The proposed designation makes
a mockery of the Plan, and requires to be
reversed.
"Metropolitan
Open Land (MOL) is land of predominantly open character
within the built up area which has more than a Borough
significance, generally because of its size and catchment
area (RPG para 7.7). The presumption against
inappropriate development which applies in the Green
Belt, applies equally to MOL (RPG para 7.8). In
accordance with draft PPG17, the Council intends to
provide the strongest protection for open space that is,
or that has the potential to be, of value to the
community."
Top
of Section;
Previous
Section (13);
Next
Section (15);
Contents
Notes:
[111] - Para 2.5
[112] - Q2, a vii
[113] - Q2 b iii
©Philip Kolvin