Bromley Unitary
Development Plan Proof of Philip
Kolvin Crystal Palace
Park Crystal Palace
Campaign Section
17
I am inclined to think that the Crystal Palace gardens do more to encourage a taste for gardening and a love of flowers among the lower classes than even the London parks.
Journal of Horticulture and Cottage Gardens, 1871.
17 Top site designation
(0296O, 0296V, 0297O). 17.1 Before reaching the
current arguments, it is worthwhile summarizing the history
of the MOL designation of the top site. 17.2 The concept of MOL
originated in the Greater London Development Plan in 1976.
Areas to be designated were shown diagrammatically on the
Key and Urban Landscape Diagrams. That included Crystal
Palace Park. Individual boroughs were left to set precise
boundaries in Borough Plans. 17.3 In the Proposals Map to
the Bromley Borough Plan Amended Written Statement of
September 1983, the whole Park was shown as Metropolitan
Open Land. The Plan was adopted in September 1985. The
policy created a regime of essentially Green Belt control
for MOL. As far as the Park was concerned, it
stated: 17.4 At that time, of course,
Bromley did not own the land, and there were no development
proposals for the top site. 17.5 By 1994, there was
permission for an hotel development, and RPG3 had elevated
MOL land to Green Belt status. Bromley was advised by the
old DoE to retain the MOL standing of the site, but to
reflect the fact that there was a planning permission for a
large development as a proposal.[115] The protection
accorded to MOL was contained in policy G6. The top site was
washed over in an MOL designation. Meanwhile, in the
Schedule of Proposals, the top site was designated for mixed
use: "Hotel, leisure centre and associated facilities
(outline planning permission exists)." The developer was
stated to be Bromley itself and a private developer. The
justification was said to be "to provide appropriate hotel
and leisure facilities, to meet growing demand and to
improve the park's amenities." 17.6 In fact, history has shown
that there is no market demand for an hotel there or
substantial built leisure facilities, and the amenities of a
park are rarely improved by placing town centre uses on
them. 17.7 In any event, the present
position is that the planning permission, which was the
justification for the site proposal, is now defunct. Given
that the entire thinking of Green Belt designation is that
Green Belt boundaries should be altered only very
exceptionally, the logical course is now to remove the site
proposal but leave the MOL designation intact. 17.8 In fact, Bromley have
chosen to take the diametrically opposite course. The UDP
proposal is to term the site "Disused Land", and to
designate it to "provide leisure and recreational
development, with associated food and drink premises, in
conjunction with the existing bus station." 17.9 Leaving aside all the
arguments about proper designation of the site, the notion
that the site of one of the most loved and influential
buildings ever constructed, in one of our greatest historic
parks, should take as its reference point "the existing bus
station" indicates a wanton failure of imagination, a lack
of understanding of the sensitivities of, and opportunities
afforded by, the site, and the profound concern felt by
local people about its future. It also serves to pre-empt
all proper debate about sustainable regeneration of this
historic asset. I have spoken to Bromley officers and
councillors about this designation. None has attempted to
defend it. But they do say that it gives flexibility as to
the future handling of the site. That might be said about
any protected site. The purpose of the Plan's policy is to
give appropriate protection, not to remove appropriate
protection to facilitate development. 17.10 In its reasoned response,
Bromley states that MOL was proposed to be removed because
the multiplex scheme would not have contributed to the
openness of the MOL. That was absolutely true, and it
underlines why, now that the scheme is not to proceed, the
MOL designation should be retained. Since the multiplex
scheme has failed, there is no conceivable justification for
removing the MOL designation. 17.11 Bromley also argued in
favour of the new designation of the site by reference to
the then extant multiplex permission. It stated that "the
proposal site and redesignation should remain in place until
such time as the future of the top site is decided." Quite
why that should be is not explained, particularly when the
proposal involves a removal of a fundamental layer of
protection. 17.12 Bromley also says that the
leisure development was proposed to satisfy a need for such
facilities in South London. That statement is made without
any supporting research or justification, and the successive
failure of several leisure schemes, including cinema
schemes, shows clearly that it is false. Finally, Bromley
states that the location is a sustainable one, being well
located for public transport. However, that appeal to PPG6
and PPG13 considerations has not been accompanied by any
sequential analysis, and no explanation is given why such
schemes should not occur in, say, Streatham (where a cinema
has recently closed), Brixton (an excellent example of
leisure-led town centre regeneration including the Ritzy
Cinema), Croydon (where a 10 screen cinema with 1,822 seats
opened in the former Grants Department Store in June 2002),
Beckenham (recent refurbishment of Odeon to 6-screen level),
Peckham (recent cinema opening) or indeed Bromley itself
(recent cinema scheme foundered). 17.13 It is worth bringing
together some of the main thinking reflected in this proof
of evidence as to why this redesignation is palpably
indefensible. (1) There is an
extremely strong feeling about the designation of
the top site. As I indicate above[116], 83%
of local people believe that the top site should
remain a park, either as managed parkland or an
ecology park. (2) The Park has been
subject not only to neglect but fragmentation over
a number of decades. No doubt each disposal of land
and subsequent construction of buildings was
considered to be the right thing to do at the time.
But the net effect has been to produce a hotchpotch
of inappropriate structures and an erosion of the
green space and landscaping conception of the Park.
The integrity of the Park needs to be reaffirmed by
a single designation, some broad guidelines in the
UDP, and a corporate commitment from Bromley to
work with all stakeholders towards a framework
masterplan to reverse the decline of the Park. The
piecemeal designation of the site will prolong
hostility, promote erosion and increase
fragmentation. Bromley does not
contest that the main part of the Park should be
MOL. I believe that it should all be MOL. This does
not mean that there can never be building there.
But it does mean that any building would need to be
strongly justified in the context of the Park's MOL
designation. A commercial leisure designation would
of course sidestep such a requirement. I strongly
believe that the century-old process of incremental
erosion must now cease, and a proactive structure
be put in place for the sensitive regeneration of
the whole. The UDP is an appropriate place to start
that process, so as to establish, through statutory
planning, the aspirations to be pursued. This will
help guide the future regeneration of the Park
having regard to that policy framework, with clear
understanding by all concerned of the objectives to
be pursued, and therefore with less scope for
fruitless and unproductive conflict. (3) The site is
currently MOL, and has been for at least 20 years.
It reflects all of the main reasons for so
designating land in para 7.7 of RPG3, all of GOL's
suggested goals for promoting urban quality, and
all of the Mayor's criteria in the draft London
Plan for inclusion of land as MOL. The current MOL
boundary, Crystal Palace Parade, is logical,
defensible and permanent. As PPG2 makes clear,
detailed boundaries should be altered only
exceptionally. No exceptional circumstances have
been advanced. Given that the MOL designation was
retained in the current UDP notwithstanding the
then imminent commercial development, now that
there is no imminent commercial development there
is simply no good reason for removing the MOL
designation. I add to the
above that in addition to the built form of leisure
proposals, the multiplex and its predecessors all
contained provision for the private car, whether by
way of roads, tunnels, roundabouts, vehicle ramps
or car parks in the Park. All of these are
obviously inimical to MOL. One of the main
reasons for designating the Park as MOL is that it
is of more than local importance as open space: it
is of metropolitan importance. That designation was
conferred knowing of the dilapidation in the park
and the need to regenerate it. The designation has
been reinforced by modern thinking about parks, and
the increased protection arising from RPG3. No good
reason has been given for its removal. As I say above,
the current boundary of the MOL is a permanent
physical feature - Crystal Palace Parade - which is
a logical, defensible, physically defined boundary.
The proposed boundary does not possess such
attributes. As such, it weakens MOL protection at
this point. It also renders vulnerable the
adjoining sites, that is to say the gardens
adjoining the traffic lights at the Anerley Hill /
Crystal Palace Parade junction and the Thames Water
covered reservoir site. Thames Water have in fact
objected to the MOL designation of the covered
reservoir site (025DH). Bromley's response to that
includes the comments that "it contributes to the
general openness of the site" and that "it is not
desirable to amend the MOL boundary". Bromley's
response is correct, but inconsistent with its
arguments regarding the top site. This underlines
the difficulties caused by ceding the principle of
commercial development of the top site. (4) The proposed
designation does nothing to respect the history of
the Park or the surrounding area, contrary to
national policy and the various historic and
conservation designations described above. It is
crucially important to handle historic parks with
sensitivity, and to designate for a commercial
leisure use in conjunction with a bus station is to
ignore every word of advice emanating from
government and national agencies. There is no
local, regional or national policy whatsoever which
indicates that to regenerate historic parks one
should redesignate them for commercial leisure. The
results of the designation create yawning
inconsistencies, which are a recipe for future
conflict. Any developer would see that this is a
Grade II* listed park, mostly a conservation area,
surrounded by conservation areas, of archaeological
significance, containing many listed structures,
and part of a major skyline ridge, yet is to be
developed for commercial leisure in conjunction
with a bus station. The proposition only needs to
be stated for its difficulties to emerge. While one
is far from saying that protective designations
absolutely preclude built form, these particular
designations in this particular place require a far
more sensitive policy response for the top site
than that proposed by Bromley. (5) The tree-lined
ridge at Crystal Palace was designated as a major
skyline ridge in policy E11 of the 1994 UDP and
policy BE14 of the Second Deposit Draft, together
with App VII.5. The Inspector is invited to notice
as she tours the area that the skyline ridge is a
major topographical feature, being the highest
tree-lined ridge in London, affording a series of
long and short views from all directions. The long
views are of importance to South Londoners, and
should not lightly be interfered with. So far as
short views are concerned, from Crystal Palace
Parade, the site provides strong open vistas across
to Kent, and there are good arguments for retaining
these views. Indeed, the vistas were themselves
protected by Policy EH11(i)(b) of the current UDP
and by BE14 of the new draft. (6) The introduction
of commercial leisure uses in this location runs
counter to new thinking on retail and leisure
development contained in PPG6, and has been subject
to no sequential analysis. There is a widespread
fear that food and drink uses will seriously damage
the night time economy of the Upper Norwood
Triangle. Before making such a designation, a
proper analysis should have been carried out, but
this has not occurred. (7) While traffic
generation questions can be made subject to a TIA,
the fact remains that there is an absence of any
strategic highway serving this area. The inevitable
consequence is that any traffic usage approaches
the site through residential areas, which is of
serious concern to local amenity groups. (8) There has been no
recreational needs assessment in terms of PPG17,
and no form of audit of open space deficiency,
before deciding to remove this land from the land
bank of recreational land. In the absence of any
proper study by the London Borough of Bromley, it
is right to reiterate that the GLC considered this
an Area of Open Space Deficiency, that the Green
Capital Report suggests that the surrounding areas,
and Southwark, Lambeth and Lewisham in particular,
are poorly served for Metropolitan Open Land, and
that the residential populations are rising
sharply, increasing pressure on local green
space. The use of parks
in Bromley is high. In 2001, the London Borough of
Bromley conducted a user satisfaction
survey.[117] This demonstrated that 80% of
Bromley residents surveyed said they had used parks
and open spaces within the last 12 months, which
was found to be in line with London generally. That
compared with similar results from its Citizens
Panel. Interestingly, 49% of Panel members
mentioned parks, playgrounds, open spaces and green
surroundings as something they most liked about the
area. This was the highest percentage for any
aspect mentioned unprompted. My experience of the
community in the other boroughs leads me to suppose
that similar percentages would be obtained all
around the Park, which is, despite its currently
appalling state, conspicuously
well-used. (9) Given the sharply
sloping topography of the Park, the top site should
be retained to provide for the recreational needs
of Norwood, Sydenham and Dulwich residents. It is
unfortunate that the remainder of the high ground
has been consumed, by the rather municipal gardens
adjoining the Triangle, the bus station, the
transmitter, the covered reservoir and the caravan
park. Local people view this as their village
green, and there is a strong argument for its
retention as such. (10) There has
apparently been no ecological study reaching
conclusions that the ecological value of the top
site is such that it should be built over. In fact,
the only existing publicly available study shows it
to be an important local asset. (11) In so far as
reliance might be placed on the occupancy of the
site by the Crystal Palace, I point out that Para
14 of PPG17 prevents parks being termed "previously
developed land" within Annex C of PPG3, and in any
event that Annex makes it clear that where the
remains of the structure have blended into the
landscape then it should not be so
termed. (12) Furthermore,
leaving aside the various planning designations of
the Park and surrounding areas, the proposed
designation of the top site does not even begin to
grapple with the historic and cultural resonance of
the Crystal Palace itself, which was a unique
building supplying a unique and world-class
function. Even if it were thought that there is
some argument for providing some architectural
focus to the Park, nothing in the proposed
designation achieves that. In fact, I believe there
are many ways of providing such focus, e.g. through
monumental sculpture, landscaping or use of water.
The proposed designation reflects a use which
completely failed and was universally despised. To
perpetuate the designation is therefore without
logic or justification. It needs to be questioned
why the proposal is "in conjunction with the bus
station", which is an incongruous imposition on the
Park, rather than in conjunction with the
regeneration of the Park, or the terracing. The
answer is because the proposal seeks to do no more
than perpetuate the effect of a now defunct and
unworthy scheme. This is a wholly inadequate
response to the regeneration needs of this
nationally important green space. (13) In so far as
reliance might be placed on the multiplex
permission, it is worth pointing out that the
permission: a. has
expired; b. was
extremely widely opposed; c. failed
because it was economically
unsustainable; d. is of at
best suspect legality, in relation to the
lack of environmental assessment. There
are now two court cases proceeding through
the European Court of Justice, one brought
by the European Commission at the instance
of the Campaign and one referred by the
House of Lords on the hearing of an appeal
by a local resident. (14) The proposed
designation represents thinking about parkland
regeneration which runs counter to all the ideas
which have emerged during the 1990s. Report after
report, and body after body, have made it clear
that the overriding responsibility is to enhance
the open space and recreational potential of
parkland, to respond to the will of the community,
to develop funding streams for the process of
regeneration. Of course, this is not to say that
there can never be a commercial use in a park: far
from it. If one visits Kew Gardens, one has the
opportunity to dine in an original conservatory, to
buy ice creams from vendors within the park, to
attend evening concerts etc. The point is that the
commercial uses there serve the park rather than
vice versa. Nobody would conceive of solving
funding problems on Hampstead Heath, Primrose Hill
or Kew Gardens by developing them for commercial
leisure. The challenge is to find funding streams
which are concomitant with the fundamental status
of the land as parkland. Given the losses in open
space that have already occurred in London, and the
high value placed on this site, it is an
impoverishment of will to take the option of
designating the site commercially. It also fails to
recognise the profound expression of the
community's aspirations for the site over the last
6 years. (15) The proposed
designation is contrary to the spirit of Bromley's
own Local Agenda 21 document, Blueprint for a
Better Bromley. This case may serve to test whether
Local Agenda 21 objectives are to have more than
marginal influence in development planning
policies. (16) In so far as
reliance may be placed on the "disused" nature of
the land, I point out merely that paragraph 2.14 of
PPG2 specifically states that dereliction is no
justification for removal of Green Belt control.
Even if major treatment were not proposed, the site
can be brought into informal recreational use for a
very small sum of money. In fact, the term
"disused" land is a misnomer. Bromley caused a
storm of protest lasting over a year by fencing off
the site between July 2002 and 2003, because of the
damage this did amongst other things to the
recreational needs of the community. The land plays
an important part in satisfying the informal
recreational needs of the surrounding
community. (17) The designation
pre-empts the sterling work carried out by local
stakeholders and Bromley over the last year to try
to develop a framework for the regeneration of the
Park. At a recent meeting of the plenary session of
the stakeholders forum, not one delegate, including
Bromley officers, considered it right to remove
MOL. (18) 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. While of
course the draft UDP policy G9 does not absolutely
preclude development of land within the Green
Chain, it is clear that the general thrust of the
policy is to protect the green character of land
within it. (19) The Park suffers
from the fact that it falls on the margins of
Bromley and is surrounded by five different
boroughs (i.e. Bromley, Croydon, Lambeth, Southwark
and Lewisham). The vast majority of users fall
outside the borough of Bromley, and therefore have
no chance of bringing influence to bear on the
regeneration process. Bromley has a poor record of
dialogue with people outside its borough boundary,
and until the Campaign filled Bromley's role of
consultation and the promotion of stakeholders'
forums, Bromley met local stakeholders almost
exclusively in court. Local people are anxious that
whilst Bromley remains the landowner, a change of
policy could return us directly to the bad old days
of expensive litigation. We do rely on the
statutory planning process to give appropriate
protection to this Park, rather than leaving the
issue wide open in the name of "flexibility." The
term "flexibility" could be used as justification
for releasing from Green Belt control all manner of
land, but I do not believe that that is a proper
role for the UDP to play. Unless there is an
exceptional justification for removal of the
designation of MOL, it should remain. I hope I have
demonstrated that every rational consideration in
fact points to its retention.
"This land
occupies a prominent position and contains the National
Sports Centre. The upper terraces and frontages to
Crystal Palace Parade require urgent attention, and the
Council will support the restoration of these terraces
and the conservation of the pedestrian
tunnel."
Top
of Section;
Previous Section (16);
Next
Section (18);
Contents
Notes:
[115] - I have been told
this, but have no documentary evidence. I have queried the position
with the London Borough of Bromley who have stated that the
"wash-over" approach was adopted following DoE advice regarding
Biggin Hill.
[116] - Paragraph 3.3.
[117] - Appendix 36.
©Philip Kolvin