 CRYSTAL PALACE CAMPAIGN November 2003 (L29) |
Objection
References: |
(L29) Objection
References:
CRYSTAL PALACE CAMPAIGN
November
2003
0296C, E, I, J, 0, P, U, V
0297C, E, I, J, O, P U, V
20062 E, F
20084 E, F
SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE OF PHILIP KOLVIN
LONDON BOROUGH OF BROMLEY, UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN
SECTION TITLE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 1 2 3 4
Abbreviations - see
Glossary
The parks are the lungs of
London
William Pitt 'The Elder'
A. MAIN PROOF
Qualifications and
background I am the Chairman of the
Crystal Palace Campaign and a barrister practising
principally in licensing, local government and
planning. I am speaking on behalf of
myself, the Crystal Palace Campaign, the Dulwich Society,
the Sydenham Society, the Norwood Society, the Crystal
Palace Foundation (in all but two of its objections
[1]) and the Stradella and Springfield Residents'
Association, together with 49 individuals. Contents;
Top The Crystal Palace
Campaign The Campaign came into
being in May 1997 to oppose a large multiplex cinema on the
top site at Crystal Palace Park. The building was widely
opposed both by local people and national, regional and
local organisations. The reasons included: the loss of open
parkland; 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; the introduction
of commercial activities into what is seen as a community
park; inconsistency with the historical connotations of the
Park; traffic, particularly given the residential environs;
loss of trees and damage to the tree-lined ridge, which is
the highest such ridge in London; fear of night-time noise,
disorder, litter etc. associated with late night uses; the
effect on local trade; dislike of the building itself; the
introduction of highways infrastructure into the Park; and
loss of ecological interest on the site. Our work has included not
only the defeat of the multiplex cinema but a widespread
public consultation exercise and the convening of a
stakeholders forum. We have felt bound to bring forward such
positive initiatives in the absence of any attempt by the
London Borough of Bromley at any time since inheriting the
Park in 1986 to do so, although we would regard such
initiatives as local government functions. Contents;
Top Formal
consultation Shortly after defeating
the multiplex proposals, we created a questionnaire for
distribution to 40,000 households and dissemination through
a variety of other means. Our report, Consultation Starts
Here, showed that 83% of respondents supported a parkland
option for the top site. The commercial leisure option was
the least popular proposal in the whole study, polling 16%
support. Contents;
Top A planning history of
the Park The Park has an important
history as the site of the Crystal Palace from 1854 to 1936.
While Bromley has
occasionally relied on the size of that building to justify
new proposals, the conditions in Victorian England were very
different from now. The Palace was set in open countryside,
and the urban pressures which have necessitated the
preservation of parkland did not then exist. Further, the
motor car had not been invented, the site being served by
two separate railway stations. The National Sports Centre
was built in 1964, purportedly in lieu of substantial
construction on the top site. The Centre is badly
dilapidated. It is also harmfully located, being built
across Paxton's central axis and practically dividing the
Park in two. In 1986, the Park was
devolved to Bromley, with the demise of the old Greater
London Council. Since then a variety of commercial schemes
have being granted planning permission for the top site. All
permissions have now lapsed. This enables a fresh look to be
taken. Contents;
Top Designations The Park itself is one of
only 28 out of 5,000 public parks listed as Grade II* on the
Register of Historic Parks and Gardens. A variety of
features in and around the Park are listed The whole Park is
listed as an area of archaeological importance. Crystal
Palace Park also forms the beginning of the South East
London Green Chain, protected by Policy G9 of the draft
Unitary Development Plan. Contents;
Top Legislation The Park is currently held
by Bromley pursuant to the London County Council (Crystal
Palace) Act 1951 and the Bromley London Borough Council
(Crystal Palace) Act 1990, which impose certain constraints
as to the use of the Park. It is important to note
that the 1990 Act is not a planning Act. It does not purport
to predetermine any of the planning arguments as to
designation or use of the Park, as Bromley made clear to
Parliament when promoting the Bill. Contents;
Top Ownerships within the
Park Ownership within the Park
is fragmented. To reverse its decline, the Park needs a
vision for the future in the form of a framework document or
masterplan. The UDP should not promote piecemeal
development, but encapsulate a broad vision as a basis for
future working. Contents;
Top Surrounding
area The ridge at Crystal
Palace Park is the highest point in South London, and
provides a valued sense of openness as one approaches it. In
the surrounding boroughs there are a number of areas of open
space deficiency. The historic nature and
influence of the Park is reflected by the number of
Conservation Areas in its environs. Contents;
Top Open Space
Analysis Bromley has not undertaken
an open space or recreational needs assessment. Its
continued promotion of development on the top site at the
Park is therefore perplexing. Our own analysis shows
that Lewisham, Lambeth and Southwark are particularly poorly
served for MOL and (obviously) Green Belt, while being
amongst the most densely populated boroughs in the country.
Population projections in these boroughs show steeply rising
trends, underlining the importance of the retention of open
space for the benefit of residents. However, all five
boroughs around the Park have tracts of open space
deficiency. Qualitative views also underline the importance
attached by Londoners to open space retention.
Contents;
Top Local Agenda 21:
Blueprint for a Better Bromley In this document, Bromley
sets out its local action plan for sustainable development.
Its contents and aims are incompatible with a commercial
leisure designation of the green ridge at the head of the
Park. Contents;
Top The revival of the
urban park It is generally recognised
that over the last half century, a lack of local authority
resources and the lack of statutory responsibility for parks
maintenance have conspired to perpetuate a decline in the
quality and standard of our urban parks. No doubt, the
question of resources influenced Bromley's thinking in
wishing to attract commercial development to the Park.
However, over the last
decade, our national thinking has moved on, in several ways.
First, the importance of the role the urban park plays in
our community life has come to be better understood and
redefined. Second, there is far greater planning and policy
protection for the urban park than formerly. Third, there
are many organisations which have come into being or have
grown in the last decade which provide mechanisms and
structures for park protection and enhancement. Fourth,
there is a greater range and availability of funding for
parkland enhancement. Thus, if there ever was currency in
Bromley's notion that in order to regenerate a glory of
Victorian landscaping one needed to build a multiplex cinema
on it, the notion is gravely outdated. Further, the idea of
designating a substantial and prominent open site at the
head of a major historic park for built commercial leisure
without any proper appraisal of the wishes and priorities of
local people runs counter to every tenet and element of park
thinking over the last decade. Contents;
Top Public attitudes to
open space All of the public survey
work conducted over the last few years shows the great
importance of urban open space to people in this country, of
all ages. National and Regional
Guidance In tandem with the more
developed thinking associated with urban parks, national
planning policy has been reinforcing the protection which
they enjoy. In particular, RPG3 gives MOL the status of
Green Belt. PPG2 reminds one that detailed boundaries of
Green Belt should be altered only exceptionally, and
expressly not because the land has become derelict. PPG17
reiterates the importance of open space with recreational
potential and also that proper assessments should precede
proposals to build on them. This is not advice which Bromley
has followed. PPG6 advocates a sequential approach to
designation of sites for retail and leisure development, but
Bromley does not appear to have undertaken any sequential
analysis in relation to the top site. National policy regarding
open space is followed and given added weight by the draft
London Plan and the Mayor's draft Culture Strategy.
Contents;
Top Other UDP
Policies 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. Upon analysis, Bromley's
proposals in respect of the top site produce a disjuncture
with the fundamental thrust of the remainder of the Plan.
Contents;
Top Introduction to
objections The main objections to the
Unitary Development Plan fall into four parts. These
are: Strategic statement
(0296C, 0297C, 0296E, 0297E) The Campaign wishes to see
some broad objectives for the Park established in the
Unitary Development Plan. It suggested wording, which it has
now revised slightly in the light of Bromley's recent
concessions regarding the treatment of the Park in the UDP.
The new suggested wording is at Appendix 44. The wording is intended to
make a statement regarding the Park's importance on a number
of levels. First, it is a national heritage asset. Second it
is of national importance as a sporting asset, albeit in a
declining facility. Third, it is an important open space for
Londoners, being the only Grade II* listed park in South
East London. Fourth, it is a highly prized local resource,
which the community has striven very hard to maintain. It is
a complex park, which has suffered from neglect and
fragmentation in the past. The opportunity should now be
taken to include broad guidance for its future regeneration.
Contents;
Top Top site designation
(0296O, 0296V, 0297O) The proposal to remove the
MOL designation is inappropriate for a series of reasons.
These reasons also apply to Bromley's recently adopted
position, which is apparently that the site should remain
MOL but development upon it should be supported in
principle. (1) There is an
extremely strong feeling about the designation of
the top site. 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. A piecemeal designation is not
only unnecessary, but counter-productive. There is
a need for a proactive structure to be put in place
for the sensitive regeneration of the whole Park.
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 top site has
been MOL for at least 20 years. It reflects all of
the main reasons for so designating land in
paragraph 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. (4) The proposed
boundary is neither logical nor defensible and
therefore 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 has 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. 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
I have described above. There is no local, regional
or national policy whatsoever which indicates that
to regenerate historic parks one should redesignate
them for commercial leisure. (5) The tree-lined
ridge at Crystal Palace is designated as a major
skyline ridge, and there are important long and
short views to and from the site. (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. (7) Local residents
are seriously concerned that that there is an
absence of any strategic highway serving this area,
undermining its suitability for substantial
commercial development. (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. Southwark, Lambeth and
Lewisham in particular, are poorly served for
Metropolitan Open Land, and their residential
populations are rising sharply, increasing pressure
on local green space. (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. 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, national planning
policy prevents parks being termed "previously
developed land". (12) The proposed
designation of the top site does not even begin to
grapple with the historic and cultural resonance of
the Crystal Palace itself. (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; and d) is of at best suspect
legality, in relation to the lack of environmental
assessment. (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,
and to develop funding streams for the process of
regeneration, which are concomitant with the
fundamental status of the land as
parkland. (15) The proposed
designation is contrary to the spirit of Bromley's
own Local Agenda 21 document, Blueprint for a
Better Bromley. (16) In so far as
reliance may be placed on the "disused" nature of
the land, 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 better informal recreational use for a
very small sum of money. (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. The
general thrust of Bromley's draft UDP 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
corporate 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. Conservation:
Objections to Chapter 6 policies. (0296I, 0297I, 0296J,
0297J) I have suggested that, in
order to reflect national guidance, policy BE11 should
read: At the same time, while
the Council merely notes that Crystal Palace Park is a Grade
II* listed park, I suggest that the opportunity be taken to
bring together its designations and reflect its
sensitivity: Finally, policy BE14 is
deficient, in that its commentary refers to the Council's
desire to protect major skyline ridges from insensitive
development, but the policy itself fails to do so. I have
suggested a perpetuation of the previous policy so as to
accord with the proposed commentary: The National Sports
Centre objection (objection refs. 0296U and 20075E, 20084E,
20062F and 20084F) I view the policy options
for the UDP as being twofold. Either the site should simply
be designated MOL, as at present, so that limited infilling
may be permitted, and greater development than that if it
can satisfy the test of very special circumstances.
Alternatively, if a quasi-MDS status is to be conferred, it
should be on the bases a) that the perimeter is drawn around
the existing boundary and not some extended line; b) that
there is far greater clarity and transparency as to what is
proposed; and c) that such proposals are the subject of
strict criteria in the UDP itself. The perimeter on the
proposals map is drawn so as practically to sever the Park
laterally. Furthermore, assurance is required that any
proposed redevelopment is purely for sporting purposes, and
not an attempt to introduce non-sports uses onto the site.
In my supplementary proof, I make some positive suggestions
to resolve the differences between Bromley and ourselves on
this issue, including a suggestion regarding criteria.
Contents;
Top Conclusion to main
proof Crystal Palace Park is a
nationally important site with a unique history. It fulfils
an important recreational need within the sub-region, being
the main strategic park for this part of London. It also
occupies a green vantage point within the topography of
South London. Recent events have underlined the need for its
sustainable regeneration. Local consultation has underlined
how it is prized as an environmental and historic resource.
The entire trend of thinking on parkland regeneration
stresses the need for a coherent, strategic approach which
involves the support of local people. This is reflected in
planning policy, the development of new bodies protective of
parks, and the generation of new funding streams for
regeneration based on recreation, culture, heritage and the
environment. Crystal Palace Park cries
out for a framework vision developed in conjunction with the
local community and the stakeholder bodies regionally and
nationally. For 6 years now the Crystal Palace Campaign has
tried to fill the void by bringing stakeholders together and
consulting as to the future of the Park, while fighting a
rearguard action against a palpably damaging scheme. This
has been a difficult and exhausting tightrope to walk.
The UDP can play its part
in the process, by giving the entire Park an MOL designation
so as to promote a coherent, integrated approach and to
restrain further fragmentation. It is highly desirable that
at some point the Plan refers to the strategic importance of
the Park and sets out in the broadest terms the desire for a
sustainable regeneration as parkland. We have suggested
wording which Bromley has never contested. The Sports Centre requires
regeneration, but the UDP should state plainly that Bromley
does not envisage a greater area of built form than exists
at present, that any development should observe strict
criteria, and that the future of the site is a sporting one.
Contents;
Top
Contents;
Top
"The Council
will protect registered parks and gardens in determining
planning applications. The Council will seek to ensure
that historic parks and gardens are appropriately managed
and maintained."
"Crystal
Palace Park is a site of particular sensitivity. It is
the only Grade II* listed park in the borough. Most of
the Park is a Conservation Area and all of it is
Metropolitan Open Land. Any proposed treatment of the
Park will need to pay close regard to these
designations."
"The Council
will not normally permit development that adversely
affects strategically important local views, views of
local importance, landmarks and skyline ridges."
Contents;
Top
B. REBUTTAL PROOF
Introduction Bromley has now conceded
that the top site should remain MOL while suggesting wording
supportive of development there. It has also proposed
wording strengthening reference to Annex C PPG2 criteria for
redevelopment of the NSC. It has not responded to the
objections regarding Chapter 6 policies. Nor has it
responded to my proof of evidence. Our response to Bromley's
suggested wording is contained at Appendix 44.
Contents;
Top Site 9: top
site While accepting that there
is no justification for removing the MOL designation of the
top site, Bromley has proposed explanatory text which is
supportive of development there. There are many objections
to that approach: (1) All the reasons
for objecting to the removal of the MOL designation
set out in my original proof of evidence still
apply. (2) An MOL
designation eschews substantial built form, while
the commentary supports it. This creates an
absurdity, and one which is liable to create a
recipe for future conflict. Such inconsistency is
also contrary to national guidance. (3) The "very special
circumstances" test would govern future
applications for built development. It should not
be diluted, or confused by contradictory
commentary. (4) National guidance
states that planning applications for inappropriate
developments should be contrary to the Plan. The
proposed commentary is to opposite effect, for two
reasons. First, it says nothing about the
Metropolitan Open Land status of the site. Second,
it is apparently supportive of built
development. (5) The reference to
the Crystal Palace Act 1990 does not resolve the
issue. The Act was not a planning Act, and Bromley
expressly told Parliament that it neither overrode
nor detracted from planning controls. The Act
preceded the equation of MOL with Green Belt by
RPG3, and also preceded the development of thinking
over the last decade regarding the importance of
the retention of urban open space. The Act is no
substitute for an appropriate policy designation of
the Park in this Unitary Development
Plan. (6) Nor does the text
stating that proposals will be brought forward in
consultation with local people resolve the problem.
The issue is one of appropriate designation and
description, not whether local people are consulted
on the development proposal. To suggest that
development is supported in principle is in fact to
ignore previous consultation and pre-empt the
results of further consultation. (7) If (which is not
apparent) Bromley has expressly approved the
wording tendered by Mr. Martin, it is hoped that it
will give the matter further consideration before
the end of the Inquiry. Mr. Martin refers
to the Crystal Palace Park dialogue process, and
the fact that proposals, including built proposals,
have been put forward. I conceived of and
originated the process, and am familiar with it.
None of the stakeholders supports interference with
the MOL designation of the top site. The Campaign's
own consultation exercise (which is the only
attempt at proper public consultation in the last
150 years that I know of) has revealed a strong
desire that the future of the site should be
managed parkland or an ecology park. Strategic
statement Bromley has conceded that
it is appropriate to have a strategic statement and that it
should be placed in Part I of the UDP. Mr. Martin's wording
is welcome in recognizing the regional significance of the
Park, the importance of consultation, and the historic
significance of the top-site. However, it falls well short
of what is required by failing to refer to the park's
statutory and non-statutory designations (including MOL), by
promoting development on the top site, and by failing to set
out any objectives which should underpin the Park's
regeneration. We have set out proposed wording in response,
in Appendix 44 hereto, which is a modest amendment of that
originally proposed in section 16 of my proof, in order to
respond to recent developments. Contents;
Top Site 8: National Sports
Centre While I agree that the
Sports Centre needs major refurbishment, and also that some
members of the community have been confused as to the nature
and purpose of an MDS designation, our own concerns have
remained constant: that the boundaries are drawn too widely,
that the proposals lack transparency and that there needs to
be strict criteria to guide future schemes. None of those
concerns is allayed by knowledge that there is a nascent
scheme for redevelopment of the site. While I am pleased to see
that Bromley has strengthened reference to Appendix C PPG2
criteria, unfortunately, the wording proposed by Bromley
does not go nearly far enough. For example, there are no
criteria set out in an actual UDP policy, rather than merely
in supporting text. In any event, such criteria would need
to do more than reflect the terms of Appendix C of PPG2. For
example, one of the proposals currently being considered is
that there might be an indoor tennis centre. Such buildings
are notoriously utilitarian shed-like structures, which
would be at odds with a landscape of this historic
importance. Consistency with its historic setting needs to
be incorporated as a criterion. Further, it would be
essential to stipulate that proposed uses of the new
building would be sporting ones. Finally, one of the main
purposes of the proposed regeneration is to open up the
heart of the Park. While Bromley has publicly stated that
its proposals will involve removal of all buildings to the
north of the central axis, the proposed MDS boundary takes
in playing fields to the north of the National Sports
Centre, which is unjustifiable and unexplained. It would be
essential to make it plain that it is the intention to open
up the heart of the Park rather than the converse.
Contents;
Top 4.1 With this in mind, we
proffer a new policy G2A together with some new text at
paragraphs 3.7a and 8.18a, as set out at Appendix 44 hereto.
If those suggestions are incorporated into the Plan, we are
prepared to withdraw the objection to the designation of the
NSC as MDS. Failing such incorporation, we remain of the
view that the best safeguard for the site is to leave it
simply as MOL, so that any development proposals are tested
against the requirement to show very special circumstances.
Contents;
Top
Philip Kolvin
December 2003
________________________
NOTES:
[1] - The Foundation will speak for itself on the removal of
the MOL designation at Proposed Site 9, embracing policy G2 (Chapter
8) and the Schedule of Proposed Sites (Chapter 16)
Abbreviations - see Glossary
