July 2003
THE WAY FORWARD
July 2003
Background to
the report
Strategic
Working Group (SWG) work programme
What is wanted
in the Park?
Options for
the future of the National Sports Centre
(NSC)
Options for
the Hilltop
Financial
drivers and opportunities
Criteria
for options appraisal
SWG
time table-work programme
Appendix
I: SWG Membership
Appendix
II: Personal aspirations
for the Park
Appendix
III: What do we want in the
Park?
Current Elements to be Retained
Current Elements to be Removed
New elements wanted
Appendix IV: Options for the NSC
Option 1: Closure (and Demolition)
Option 2: Continue with External Funding
Option 3: Continue with LBB Funding
Option 4: Reduced Form, Less LBB Funding
Option 5: Modernised/Rebuilt Centre, Little LBB Funding
Option 6: Change to Non-Sports Use
Option 7: Relocation
Appendix V: Options for the Hilltop
A: Parkland
B: Commercial Development
C: Development for (local) Community Use
D: Mixed Commercial + Community
Other Comments on Hilltop Options
Appendix VI: Financial drivers and opportunities
1. Potential Capital Needs
2. Potential Capital Receipts
3. Potential Revenue Needs
4. Potential Revenue Sources
General Comments on Finance
The Strategic Working Group (SWG) was one of the two working groups set up by the Main Group meeting of the Crystal Palace Dialogue in November 2002. Membership of the SWG was agreed in outline at that meeting and it was also agreed that it was to work to the Main Group and had no authority to make decisions on behalf of the dialogue group as a whole. (A membership list for the SWG is attached at Appendix I.)
Following a gap in the process while funding was secured, the SWG has met five times between February and June 2003. (During the same period , the Management Working Group has also met twice and been discontinued.) In April, five groups represented on the SWG (Crystal Palace Community Association, Crystal Palace Protest, Ridge Wildlife Group, Triangle Traders and West Beckenham Residents Association) elected to withdraw from the process. The remaining members (which still includes a number of residents groups) considered that the process, and SWG meetings, should continue at least until the next meeting of the Main Group.
The SWG is required to report back to the Main Group from time to time. This report gives an account of the SWG's work and thinking so far and has been amended and endorsed by the Main Group. It is now being presented to the Executive Committee of the London Borough of Bromley, who are invited to respond to the report and to indicate the extent to which they agree or disagree with its draft findings.
It was agreed that the SWG would focus on long term issues and future capital expenditure in the park, including:
• Future of the National
Sports Centre (NSC)
• Future of the hilltop area
• Future of the rest of the park
• Any other improvements or development works, including
landscaping and conservation of historic features
• Future ownership and management models for the park, and
community involvement in this
• Capital and revenue funding
• Public consultation proposals
The future of both the hilltop and the NSC were seen as core issues and the following staged approach was agreed, potentially involving a mix of SWG work and wider public consultation:
• Scoping of the needs and
aspirations of the various parties in relation to the long term use
of elements within the park, including the hilltop and the NSC
• Clarification of any uses that would be unacceptable
• Development of jointly agreed criteria for assessing
options
• Assembly of any current proposals (and the generation of new
ones, if required) to create a broad range within which to work
• Initial assessment of options according to agreed criteria
• Modification of options to produce a comprehensive range that
covers the full range of needs
• Final assessment to select or synthesise the 'best fit'
option
The first three tasks above have already been addressed by the SWG and are reported on below. The remaining four points are still to be addressed.
Initial discussions about the future of the park as a whole revealed a significant degree of consensus. A full account is given at Appendix II, but the main areas of agreement are summarised below:
A high value is placed by all on the open space provided by the park
The great majority of SWG members felt that limited and appropriate building development would be acceptable on the hilltop (but without any definition, at this stage, of either 'limited' or 'appropriate'). Others felt that development might include landscaping, for example, but not necessarily building; few were prepared to endorse the idea of a large, and especially a commercial, development.
The importance of developing or maintaining wildlife value was widely recognised
Heritage and education were seen as key themes and the need to restore and care for heritage features was acknowledged
Community access to, and use of, the park and its buildings was a common theme; uses should in many cases be community-led and should include provision for children and young people
The importance of local/regional/national/international aspects was recognised
There was widespread support for the provision of a viewing platform at the top of the park
Many participants supported the idea of a feature of landmark quality
It was acknowledged that the majority of the aspirations were not mutually inconsistent
Appendix III sets out the results of a more detailed review of the individual features that SWG members believed the park should or should not incorporate. Once again, there was a high degree of consensus, with only a small number of features appearing to be contentious. The list of agreed items could serve as a 'shopping list' of potential features during the design stage. The SWG recognised, of course, that the planning status of the land would have a bearing upon the extent and form that any development might take. The result of the development plan inquiry scheduled for October 2003, that may see the hilltop site de-designated as Metropolitan Open Land, will clearly have a bearing upon this.
OPTIONS FOR THE FUTURE OF THE NATIONAL SPORTS CENTRE
The SWG understands that the future of the NSC, and the possible costs associated with it, is a key issue in determining other aspects of the park and its future. In view of Sport England's planned surrender of the lease in March 2004, it also an urgent matter. A range of basic options for the NSC were identified and discussed. These are summarised at Appendix IV.
The SWG recognises that Bromley Council is faced with a considerable dilemma as a result of Sport England's decision to surrender the NSC lease. In particular, the SWG accepts that it would be unreasonable for Bromley to fund a national/regional facility without outside financial assistance (such as that currently made available to Sport England by the government). In the absence of external funding, LBB responsibility for the NSC would inevitably have financial consequences elsewhere, and probably on the remainder of the park. It is unlikely, however, that any other body will take on the current revenue cost of £2m per annum. Closure of much or all of the facility is therefore a real threat, although this must be seen in the context the decision to mount a London bid for the 2012 Olympics and the impact this will have on the London sports scene, and on the Crystal Palace athletics track in particular.
There is no doubt that the existing NSC buildings cut the park in half and that many of these facilities are out of date when compared with the needs and aspirations of 21st century users. The SWG recognises that perhaps the most viable long term option would be to demolish and rebuild the facilities as a modern multi-purpose sports centre with much lower running costs. This would allow possible re-siting (e.g. closer to the railway station or another location on the periphery of the park) which would be less disruptive to the rest of the park and could be more easily accessible. However, this would require listed building consent, since the NSC is a Grade II* listed building.
Whatever the impact of the London Olympic bid, the SWG's favoured option, despite the funding challenges, is the continued provision of sports facilities in the park. The provision of such a facility could satisfy regional and possibly national needs and would be subject to agreement on such issues as its size, location, footprint, architectural design, etc. The mix of facilities provided would affect its income generation potential and therefore its subsidy needs.
The SWG has explored a list of broad options for the hilltop. These are detailed in Appendix V, with examples of the kinds of activity that might be included under some of the headings. The activities are illustrative only and appearance on the list does not signify any support from the SWG. The pros and cons of each were assessed but the options are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
A key theme that has emerged is the likelihood of significant resistance from many sectors of the community to a large commercial development on the hilltop. However, there is a willingness to consider a mix of uses within the context of the range of facilities that the park as a whole could provide. In any event, the SWG identified a linkage between the determination of the future of the hilltop and the NSC. There was concern, however, that if the regeneration of the park proved to be a great success, a whole new range of issues associated with more intensive use would need to be addressed. What has also become clear is that there is no single community view: different groups want open parkland, some community-based development (to a greater or lesser degree) or some commercial development (again to a greater or lesser degree).
Clearly the London Borough of Bromley, as the owner of the site, has to deal with financial considerations for the hilltop and how these can be integrated with capital and revenue funding for works within the rest of the park. Other factors that have a bearing on the future of the hilltop identified by the SWG included:
• The area of the hilltop that might be developed given that the maximum area available for development specified in the Bromley London Borough Council (Crystal Palace) Act 1990 and the height constraints imposed by the existing transmission masts.
• The need to consider any development of the hilltop within the context of a plan for the whole park.
• The benefits and constraints imposed by any Metropolitan Open Land designation.
FINANCIAL DRIVERS AND OPPORTUNITIES
The group recognised the potential to develop positive financial interrelationships between the hilltop and the NSC and the rest of the park. It was acknowledged that modest commercial or mixed development could enable a capital premium to be released to help fund other improvements needed elsewhere in the park.
Revenues could also be generated that could help with running costs for the park. To clarify the scope of the figures involved, the group attempted to estimate both capital and revenue costs, and potential sources of capital and revenue income for the park.
Perhaps the most significant issue is the scale of financing required to help bring improved facilities and services to the park. For example, the previous Lottery bid to refurbish and modernise the existing indoor facilities within the NSC was estimated at around £40m at 2000 prices. The park itself requires substantial funding to enable the restoration project to be completed - probably in the region of £30 - £40m.
The scale of the financial challenge is clearly well beyond the means of a single local authority, and the SWG have recognised the need to involve regional and national government offices in an attempt to build multi-agency support and funding to address Crystal Palace's long term sustainability. Although a large scale commercial development is unlikely to muster support, it is possible that a more modest or mixed commercial/public facility would be supported if it resulted in some much needed capital or revenue spin off for the benefit of the park.
Estimated figures are summarised for the main elements within the park at Appendix VI.
CRITERIA FOR OPTIONS APPRAISAL
At a later stage in the dialogue process it is likely that competing proposals for the park will need to be assessed. In order to do this as objectively as possible it is helpful to have an agreed set of criteria that all participants will use. The dialogue group has identified the following criteria but did not agree any order of importance.:
• To what extent does the
proposal recognise the park's heritage and green open space
value?
• What are the financial implications of the proposal in terms
of capital cost, revenue costs/income and future investment
potential?
• Are the proposals realistic/achievable?
• What are the impacts upon the local community?
• Does the proposal enjoy the support of the community?
• Does the proposal contribute to an overall framework for the
park and the surrounding area?
• What is the proposal providing to meet the sports,
recreational, cultural and educational needs of the community?
• What are the environmental impacts of the proposal in terms of
such matters as traffic generation, noise and pollution?
• What is the target catchment area of the proposal, i.e. local,
regional, national or international?
• How does the proposal impact upon the level of biodiversity
within the park?
• How does the proposal impact upon the extent of managed
parkland and wild space?
• Does the proposal enhance the special qualities of Crystal
Palace Park
• What are the implications of parking and public transport
provision? Would it provide addition parking for the local trading
community (and customers)? Would it be charged for?
• Is the design of an appropriately high quality to enhance the
character and appearance of the park as a whole?
• Does the proposal comply with Green Flag* benchmarks?
• Does the proposal enhance or inhibit access to the park?
• Does the proposal safeguard the security and safety of the
park's users?
(*The Green Flag benchmark is the set of criteria being developed by the Civic Trust for assessing the value of parks.)
SWG TIME TABLE - WORK PROGRAMME
The SWG recommends the following timetable for the next phase of its work.
July 2003 Main Group Review SWG work to
date Sept Task Group? Design public
consultation Oct SWG Complete scheme appraisal
& generate draft 'best fit' scheme for
consultation Nov Main Group )Review of SWG's
recommended 'best fit' Jan 2004 SWG Preparation of final
recommendations
Review options for continuation of dialogue
Review SWG membership
Agree future work programme
Agree broad guidelines & timetable for public
consultation
SWG
Begin appraisal of existing schemes
Public consultation
)scheme
Whether this timetable will be achievable depends on a number of
factors, including
• the views of the Main Group and Bromley on the SWG's work so far;
• the capacity of the SWG to agree its appraisal of existing proposals and develop a 'best fit' scheme;
• the extent to which challenges to the effectiveness of the process (see below) can be overcome without taking up excessive time.
Even if the timetable is achieved, a number of items will still remain outstanding, including discussion of the long term ownership and management structures for the park and development of an agreed management plan.
Sport England plus national governing bodies for swimming & athletics (as appropriate) & local sports organisations:
English Heritage
Crystal Palace Foundation
London Wildlife Trust
Crystal Palace Community Forum
LB Bromley, officers & members
Crystal Palace Community Association*
Sydenham Society
Dulwich Society
Norwood Society
Penge Forum
Tessa Jowell's office
Ridge Wildlife Group*
Green Party
Upper Norwood Chamber of Commerce
Triangle Traders*
Crystal Palace Campaign
Lambethans' Society
LB Croydon
Crystal Palace Protest*
LB Lambeth
LB Southwark
LB Lewisham (?)
Local residents (including W. Beckenham*
Residents Association)
Youth representatives
Special needs groups
Transport for London
Greater London Authority
Note: Representatives from LDA and Arup have also attended as guests of the SWG, to discuss their role in the process convened by GOL.
To
Contents
[*Ed: note - these groups were not present for some of the
meetings]
The facilitator invited participants to spend up to two minutes each, uninterrupted, to express their personal views on the future of the park. Some participants also spoke on behalf of the groups they represented.
Preserve hilltop for wildlife and open space. Building should be restricted to above old subway.
Park is for people who live nearby, especially the parts nearest to residential areas W & N &endash; should be maintained as public open space. Consider congestion issues from access to anything in the park.
A resource for local and out-of-area people. An open space with enough income stream to pay for maintaining the park services and security. Could have some income generating projects. Question of how and where.
Manage as a coherent space. Publicly owned and managed for benefits of local people living round park. Beautiful landscape. Wildlife friendly. Some 'wild space' where people can escape. Use local and other experience to design and manage more cheaply. Use for local community led events - revenue generating (markets e.g.) or for entertainment. Top site retained as open space. Minimal building.
Heritage site. Recreating and learning use. Embracing new focal points or Concepts. Focal point can be structure or something else which focuses.
Heritage and listing is the glue. Basis of park is history of CP. Education on CP (not to exclusion of walking/open space opportunities etc.). Could be like Iron Bridge Gorge Museum, a museum and people's back garden. Living history.
Parkland/history/Community. Park aspect is important for locals and people from further away. Management plan and sustainable finance are necessary. Commercial building OK as contributes to financial sustainability - as long as there is public consultation. New things not ruled out.
New things are OK and can be good (see Sheffield Winter Gardens). Something that stands out on the ridge - an Angel of the South? To be visible from long way. Maybe phoenix theme.
New things can be good. Let's not be afraid of them. In Gateshead lots of initial opposition to Angel of North. New things can assist regeneration. Largely agree with what others have said.
Public open space. Renovate Italian terraces and Sphinxes. 10.6.04 &endash; 150th anniversary of CP. Improved top site. No fence.
Appropriate development on top site. Do need income generation. Good public transport links.
Sports Centre as Olympic venue (possibly).
Sports Centre as regional venue, centre for sporting excellence. (Not Olympic - not got road infrastructure.) Urban park surrounded by people without gardens. Space for young people.
Education centre for local and beyond, (i.e. not just re. CP). Education re architecture and design generally. Buildings which blend in with surroundings.
Large open space/park. Enjoyed zoo as child. An oasis. Recreation - your enthusiasm, your soul.
Demolish sports centre. Like Hampstead Heath or Wimbledon Common - large open space. Flowers nice but expensive. Don't go to a park for buildings, but to get away from them. Peace and quite!
Sports centre restored as regional centre and minor part of Olympics. Top site as heritage centre using old castings, viewing platform, restore old remains, terraces. Do something with derelict areas.
Refurbish CP Museum.
Well used park (like Kelsey Park). Focal points OK. Top site can be developed as open space, then council remove fence.
A plan for whole park, financed. Listed buildings repaired.
As a park (in a very built-up area). Appropriate community type buildings. Put back race track as it generates income. Low maintenance design for park (cheaper). Restore hard paths for children to play. Play area at top, on ridge. A village green for locals, (incl. Croydon, Southwark, Lambeth, Lewisham).
A viewing gallery. Use the subway as part of museum, arts centre or something. Restore tree area as trees. Not restore terraces. No Olympics. Park keepers.
The group was asked to build on the 'aspirations' work above by generating a more detailed list of features that were or were not wanted in the park. This was done in three categories, as shown below.
When the full list was displayed, participants were asked to indicate any with which they disagreed and these are marked with an asterisk*. All the others were broadly agreed by all participants.
Current Elements to be Retained
i.e. What is in the park already which you would like to see kept, including items needing repair or improvement?
Current Elements to be Removed
i.e. What is in the park already which you would like to get rid of?
nb: Some of the uses are acceptable but may be in wrong location or wrong building - e.g. café. Others may need alteration - e.g. store channel needs re-aligning.
New Elements Wanted
OPTION l: Closure (and Demolition?)
Pros Cons saves £2 million pa
revenue cost against listed
designation gets rid of out of date
facilities loss of asset frees up land disaffected
users takes CP off map
fewer visitors
loss of employment
politically uncertain for LBB
loss of only national sports stadium
in London ( football & athletics )
history would be lost
costs of demolition/dereliction (may
not get demolished &endash; just left)
loss of youth/communities facilities
effect on local economy
other statutory agencies would be
unhappy about losing facility, particularly in connection
with Olympic bid
OPTION 2: Continue with External Funding
Pros Cons retains asset still got a clapped out
centre retains designed
used park still
divided solves LBB's
problems concrete
everywhere retains
employment doesn't guarantee it won't
deteriorate user groups
happy potential
privatisation business within sports
centre happy introduces uncertainty Fresh management
ideas same problem might arise
in 5 or 10 years time
- potential undesirable uses e.g. football
unlikely to happen
misses opportunity to do something now
doesn't address issues of park
Other Notes to Option 2
Some costs would be:
£6&endash;7m for electrical/mechanical plant
£1m for roof - currently leaking
Renew glazing - ?
OPTION 3: Continue with LBB Funding
Pros Cons receive dilapidation money
from SE doesn't address revenue
costs (£2m pa) keeps as community
facility political resistance from
LBB tax payers run by LA/local
control at risk again
financially as per option 2 reduce LBB money for rest
of park involvement of other LAs
in funding ???? doesn't address local v
national needs
national vs local conflict
OPTION 4: Reduced Form, Less LBB Funding
e.g. "get rid of swimming pool"
Pros Cons local facility reduced
facility as per option 2 but for
reduced asset disaffected groups e.g.
swimmers less LBB funding
required likely loss of swimming
pool possible re-use of
swimming pool for other sports possible loss of
dilapidations lose problems associated
with swimming pool = easier space to service loss of business
payment to LBB
loss of staff morale
loss of elite swimming provision
lose grant from NSA
OPTION 5: Modernised/Rebuilt Centre, Little LBB Funding (and Possible Change of Location)
Pros Cons could be popular
demolition would clash
with listed status (total demolition would almost certainly
go to public enquiry) energy efficient
safety issues lower revenue
costs endangers employment in
short term improved facilities modernising OK under
listed building status
new sports
revenue earning potential
increased usage
moving entire sports centre:- less divided
park
- nearer transport
- better night time access
partial demolition might be OK
greater use by local community
maintain employment & business - build elsewhere
first
Other Notes to Option 5
OPTION 6: Change to Non-Sports Use
Pros Cons could be self
funding potential commercial
use retains listed
building park still
divided potential community
use viability
issues regeneration potential loss of
national/regional sports facilities as per Option
1 might help preserve
hilltop from development commercial use
possibly
incompatible with historic park
loss of CP prestige
unpopularity
traffic generation + other environmental impacts
OPTION 7: Relocation
This is covered under the discussion of Option 5 above.
The group developed a list of broad options for the hilltop and gave examples of the kinds of activity that might be included under some of the headings. The activities are illustrative only and appearance on the list does not imply any support from the SWG. The pros and cons of each were assessed but the options are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Comments subsequently added by agreement by the Main Working group are shown in italics.
A: Parkland
Could also include wildlife; viewing "mound"; wildlife plants park as Paxton tribute.
Pros Cons majority of community
members/local residents happy? missed opportunity to
resolve NSC issues missed opportunity to
raise capital to inject into park in keeping with Grade II*
listed park? (or not?) miss opportunity to
reinstate architectural focus in park (least controversial
option) could improve entrances to
park Does not provide any extra
car parking Do we need any more
park? Doesn't meet national
requirements of site
B: Commercial Development
"For profit" developments: cinema, restaurant, residential, retail, hotel
Pros Cons generate capital and/or
revenue income to benefit park possibly not right place
to put it (or is it?); could put it elsewhere in
park traffic generation + local
impact extra visitors to
park extra visitors to
park would spark Crystal Palace
Campaign Mk-II loss of MOL loss of archaeological
value? (but could dig up before development) any associated hotel would
benefit NSC users Out of keeping with park's
history may conflict with planning legislation
C: Development for (local) Community Use
"Not for profit" &endash; museum, heritage site, art gallery, replica crystal Palace (small scale), Eden type dome; exhibition centre; re-located NSC.
Pros Cons respond to local
needs financial
viability? modest scale still leaves open space
opportunity difficult to
fund? lost on national historic
site not great traffic
generator regional use may generate
extra funds could focus community
involvement in park could provide
employment/training for special needs groups
D: Mixed Commercial + Community
Could include landmark architecture
Pros Cons some financial advantages
-commercial development could fund community
element potential loss of open
space/parkland community could lose out to commercial
pressure
most pros and cons are a mixture of those for options B & C
Other Comments on Hilltop Options
The SWG recognised the potential
for financial links between the NSC and the rest of the park. In
order to clarify the situation, the group reviewed the current and
potential costs and income sources for the park. Costs, where given,
are based on previous LBB estimates, and are not indicative of
today's prices.
1. Potential Capital Needs
Sports Centre:
£20 million to maintain status quo, but previous lottery bid was for £42m, to update on same site, but with significantly improved facilities and services and reduced revenue costs.Demolition and relocation (with reduced facilities + space - regional rather than national) - £25-30m.
Bespoke facility for Olympics - likely to be substantially more expensive
Terraces:
"repair" and make usable - £10 - 20m
treat as "controlled ruin" - low cost option
demolish and remove - could run to several million bury them on site ?
Rest of Park:
general refurbishment - £20 - 30m
Museum:
repair + improvements - dependent on scope and scale of improvement plans
Subway:
stabilise £20-30k
make fully "accessible" £100-150k
make into usable space &endash; higher cost
Hilltop:
General restoration - cost dependent on scope and quality of design
Total Capital Requirement: depending on the scope of the above could be a minimum of £50m but more if schemes are more ambitious.
2. Potential Capital Receipts
Sale of hilltop lease - could generate several millions(maybe more for residential sale, but this is highly unlikely to be an option)
DCMS? - not a funding body - money would come through SE
Heritage Lottery Fund
New Opportunities Fund ( parks + open spaces part of theme for next year)
European Regional Development Fund
Arts Lottery Fund
GLA
General regeneration funding from central government
English Partnerships
Commercial partners/PFI - private sector partners design, build, operate - they look for return on investment
Corporation of London
Grant making trusts (can act as levers to other funders)
Governing bodies of sports
Private benefactors
London Boroughs (package would need to include something in return)
Sponsorship - commercial - the Nike sports centre?
3. Potential Revenue Needs
Maintenance of park:
currently costs in the region of £500k/annum
Sports Centre:
subsidy currently estimated at £2m/annum
4. Potential Revenue Sources
Park users:
Zoo, café - £200k paSpecial events (including occasional large events) - £100k pa
Sports centre (only if managed by LBB) - £1m
Total Revenue Income:
£1.3m pa
General Comments on Finance
To
Contents
Top
of page; Return
to Meetings/Reports Index;
25/9/03 Last updated 25/9/03
NOTE: The process is being facilitated by Nigel Westaway and
Associates. Contact
them.