Docstoc

NIGEL WESTAWAY - Get as DOC

Document Sample
NIGEL WESTAWAY - Get as DOC Powered By Docstoc
					CRYSTAL PALACE PARK DIALOGUE
Record of the Main Group Meeting

Saturday 19th May 2007

Contents

Attendees ----------------------------------------------------------- . 1 Ground Rules ------------------------------------------------------- . 3 Agenda -------------------------------------------------------------- 4 Updates ------------------------------------------------------------- . 4 Updates: Participant's Comments --------------------------------- . 6 Presentations and Discussion --------------------------------------. 8 Housing ------------------------------------------------------------- . 8 Housing and Funding: Discussion --------------------------------- 11 Revised Afternoon Agenda ---------------------------------------- 13 Post-lunch Queries ------------------------------------------------- 13 Security and Lighting ---------------------------------------------- 14 Access, Parking and Traffic ---------------------------------------- 16 Sustainability ------------------------------------------------------- 18 Interpretation -------------------------------------------------------20 Way Forward --------------------------------------------------------22 Tree Top Walk ------------------------------------------------------ 23 Park Working Group ------------------------------------------------23 Appendix 1: Costs/Regeneration ---------------------------------- N/A Appendix 2: Forward Programme --------------------------------- N/A Appendix 3: Funding Dilemma ------------------------------------ N/A Appendix 4: Crystal Palace Dialogue Assessment Criteria ------- 24

NB. Appendix 1, 2 and 3 are not available on the RTF version of this document but if you would like to receive a copy of the report including Appendices 1, 2 and 3 please contact The Environment Council.

INTRODUCTORY NOTE
The meeting was facilitated by Nigel Westaway & Associates and The Environment Council. This report is a typed transcript of the flipchart record written (in open view of all the participants) during the meeting. To make the record more intelligible, some explanatory notes have since been added by the facilitator. These are shown in bold italics. All other wording is as agreed by participants on the day, apart from minor grammatical corrections and clarifications. Comments recorded are made by individuals and these views are not necessarily shared by other participants. Agreements reached by the whole group are boxed like this.

Because the record is inevitably cryptic in places, it is recommended that it should not be used to brief people who did not attend the meeting without a full explanation from a participant.

Attendees
Name A Allen Charles Anglin Peter Austin Irene Baker-Hunt Sharon Baldwin Joyce Bellamy John Bellerby Don Bianco Ivan Blai Robin Buckle Alastair Cameron Munish Chopra Monica Clarke Robert Creed Jason Cunningham Vivien Day Annika Dyllick-Brenzinger Anita Dyson Norman Edgell Recreation D Elkin Suzanne Elkin Rosemarie Falaiye Kit Farrow Joseph Figueira Richard Francis Alan Freeman Roger Frith Doris Gadsby Pam Gray John Greatrex Nick Goy Stuart Grove Gill Hall Terry Hancock Janice Hardy Adam Harman Doreen Heath Martin Heath Leo Held Adrian Hill D Hooper Mischa Ickstadt Barry Kidson Maureen King Toby Kramer Tilman Latz Ken Lewington Fraser Lowe Derek Mantle Mac McKenna Organisation Local resident Local Dialogue Norwood Society LB Croydon Metropolitan Public Gardens Association Crystal Palace Community Association (CPCA) FoWNC London Radio Car Club PFL /London Development Agency (LDA) Joseph Paxton Society Local Dialogue No housing Capel Manor Local resident CPC Meadowcroft Griffin Architects (Masterplanning team) Friends of Crystal Palace Park London Swimming/London Federation of Sports & No housing No housing Crystal Palace Community Association (CPCA) Local resident UNJLC Local citizen (adult, not a child) West Beckenham Residents Association London Development Agency (LDA) Crystal Palace Community Association (CPCA) UNLC etc Joseph Paxton Society Local resident Sydenham Town Local resident Local resident Local resident Local resident Lambethans‟ Society Ridge Wildlife Group (No housing) Norwood Society Dulwich Society Local resident Latz & Partners (Masterplanning team) Local resident Latz & Partners (Masterplanning team) Latz & Partners (Masterplanning team) Crystal Palace Foundation Local resident Local resident
1

Name Phil Meadowcroft Ellinor Michel Dave Miller Jane Moore Karen Moran Allan Munday Sheila Myers David N-Lord Sue Nagle Elaine Nevin Abdel Ouhla Katriona Oglivy-Webb Pat Palmer John Payne John Prideaux Judy Raphael Diane Redford Craig Richardson Karl Richter Katie Robinson Ellena Rushbrook Pat Ryan Ray Sacks Laura Samuels Allie Kathryn Stuart Richard Syddall Jon Treadway Pat Trembath Jon Todd J Walker Mike Warwick E R Watt Emma Wheelhouse Angela Willees J Wood Malcolm Woods Martha Ward- Figueira Rachel Ward Jim Williams Diane Young

Organisation Meadowcroft Griffin Architects (Masterplanning team) Local resident Norwood Society Bromley Green Party Streatham Society/Croydon Society Local resident Urban Wildlife Forum and Dulwich Society Triangle Traders/Chamber of Commerce Local resident Local resident and member of various local groups CPCDT No housing Local resident Crystal Palace Community Association (CPCA) Friends of Crystal Palace Park Local resident Local resident Local resident Upper Norwood ward Councillor Crystal Palace Campaign London Development Agency (LDA) Local resident London Development Agency (LDA) Local resident Sydenham Society Local resident Local resident Local resident EDS London Development Agency (LDA) Dulwich Society London Federation of Sports & Recreation, ACU English Heritage National Sports Centre user National Sports Centre user Local resident

2

Apologies
Name Councillor John Canvin Shireen Dawankar Jon Dickinson Melvyn Harrison Jacqui Lait Peter Lewis Christine Seaman Organisation LB Bromley, Crystal Palace ward South London Partnership Young People‟s Representative Crystal Palace Foundation MP, Beckenham ward Sydenham Tennis Club South London Partnership

Facilitation Team
Name Winsome Grigor Mike King Erica Sutton Nigel Westaway Tom Woolley Organisation The Environment Council The Environment Council The Environment Council Nigel Westaway Associates The Environment Council

Ground Rules
        
One person speaks at a time No smoking in building No food/drink outside dining room Mobiles off Stick to agreed agenda Watch the wall record – help us get it right Be respectful No audio-visual recording Be punctual

3

Agenda
9:30 Agenda review etc Park proposals and costs Funding options Housing Discussion BREAK Discussion (continued) Security and lighting Traffic and parking LUNCH Sustainability Park interpretation Discussion BREAK Discussion What next? – Park Working Group CLOSE

11:10

12:40

2:30 3:45

Updates
To save time for other agenda items, the update information below was posted on the walls in the meeting room, along with blank sheets for participants’ comments.

Sports Centre
The National Sports Centre (NSC) is in very poor condition, with many internal services on the brink of failure. Refurbishment is currently being planned by the London Development Agency (LDA) and work is expected to begin in November of this year. This will take about 6 months, allowing the NSC to open again in May for the youth games. Once completed, the pool and dry areas will remain in use until the new centre is built (after the 2012 Olympics) and the improvements will enhance the Crystal Palace bid for Olympic training camp status as well as greatly improving conditions for regular users. Greenwich Leisure Services, the NSC‟s manager, will appoint a dedicated Liaison Officer to work with sports user groups and with the public to ensure that disruption is kept to a minimum.

Park Working Group Membership
Crystal Palace Community Association (CPCA) has recently asked to rejoin the Park Working Group (PWG) and has had two meetings with the facilitators to explore this. To date, a satisfactory formula has not been found which would allow CPCA to rejoin the group on terms that are compatible with the code of conduct agreed by other PWG members. The facilitators will set out in writing to CPCA the position as they understand it and further discussions may follow. Meanwhile, however, CPCA members continue to attend the Main Group and the public workshops. The facilitators have also restated their offer to set up a special consultation meeting for CPCA members but we understand that, as before, this offer will not be taken up.

4

Tramlink
Transport for London (TfL) is expected to produce a report on the Crystal Palace tram consultation by the end of June and to make an announcement about the intended route in the autumn. (For more information visit www.tfl.gov.uk/trams and follow links for Croydon tram extension). Note that TfL‟s consultation was entirely separate to the Crystal Palace Dialogue, but there will be a park workshop on the possible impacts of the tram in June.

Turnstiles
Demolition work on the main turnstiles and bridge is almost finished and other redundant walls near the sports centre are also being removed. The turnstile area will be landscaped and returned to the park and this is expected to be completed by the end of June.

Capel Manor
The Capel Manor planning application was recently approved by Bromley and has now been passed to the Government Office for London for ratification. The farm is expected to open by the end of September.

Events Royal Philharmonic Orchestra
After almost 10 years absence, the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra (RPO) will return to the park in August. A new event licence application has been submitted to Bromley and will be heard on 1st June. Four objections to the application have been received but the RPO‟s plans are supported by strong public demand. For more information or bookings see www.popsinthepark.co.uk or call 0870 060 2520.

Tour of Britain
The Tour of Britain cycle race is expected to start in Crystal Palace Park on 9th September. For updates see www.crystalpalacepark.org

Farmers Markets
The LDA would like to re-introduce the farmers markets to the hilltop and is currently working on provision of power, water & drainage services to that part of the park to ensure appropriate standards can be met.

The Bowl Festival
The Bowl Festival will return to the park at the end of July. Sounds of the Suburbs is assembling a programme of local artists and musicians, supported by the LDA.

Crystal Palace Triathlon
This will take place on Saturday 27th May.

5

Guyana Family Sports Day
Subject to licence, this will be at the NSC on 28th May. For more information see www.guyanaukfunday.com

Wellness Fun Run
This 10k run will take place on 23rd June. For more information, or to register, see www.gllpromo.org

London Youth Games
The finals between the 32 London Boroughs will be held at the sports centre on Saturday 30th June/Sunday 1st July. Choice FM will also host a dance competition.

Norwich Union Grand Prix
This will be held on Friday 3rd August. British & European indoor triple jump champion Phillip Idowu has confirmed that he will be competing. Tickets can be obtained on 0870 402 8000 or at www.seetickets.com/ukathletics

Other Activities
A range of other activities will run in the park, including a programme of participation events for „Love Parks Week‟, 16-24 June.

Events Website
The list above does not show all the planned events. A dedicated events section will be live on the website from June – see www.crystalpalacepark.org This will include information on forthcoming events plus ticketing and travel information.

Updates: Participants‟ Comments
          
Capel Manor “farm” – watch carefully for reduced opening and public access… Restore terraces and historic structures as top priority. Capel Manor are already considering increasing their educational operation in the park, hot on the heels of their „success‟. The park: will any of the master plan happen regardless of funding? Where will the first £1 spent on the park be seen? The farm‟s opening hours to the public: 1.5 hours am, 1.5 hours pm: Monday to Friday. No trams in the park. Together we can change Transport for London‟s (TfL) mind. Well done Laura, I liked your ideas. Restore historic terraces, balustrades and new statuary – if history worth promoting don‟t restrict to „pockets‟. National attractions are designed to attract hundreds of thousands of visitors. What‟s cost of infrastructure to accommodate them – roads, parking, facilities, congestion, pollution, etc etc. We are back to the multiplex fiasco!! Martha would like these in the park – swings, slide, dinosaur, flowers and grass, lawn mower.
6

    





        

I support a spectacular museum but not an apologetic learning centre – is any cooperation or joint partnership with Horniman or Dulwich Picture Gallery feasible? Encourage events such as concerts and cycle races – it can only raise profile. The Capel Manor project should be utilised to give young and disadvantaged people encouragement to have a stake in the maintenance and conservation of the park landscape, in a positive manner, and to identify with the park. Great to see that the proposals are giving so much park back – turning the central car parking area green, getting rid of the housing (athletics lodge) from the centre of the park and reclaiming most of the space from the caravan park for the public. „Process Point‟: „Consultation‟? Ongoing problem of inadequate time for discussion, including major issue points from the floor. Too much „lecturing‟ from London Development Agency (LDA), Latz & Partners and Nigel Westaway. Not enough spoken „feedback‟. Roger Frith (LDA) says in open forum (pm) that all avenues of finance for this very expensive (Latz & Partners) „package‟ will be explored! Better late than never. The least acceptable option is private development, in fact it is still totally unacceptable. Capel Manor application not ratified with Government Office of London therefore they have no authority to operate in the park but they‟re already doing so, and were even before Bromley gave their consent. Thus they are operating unlawfully. Do we endorse unlawful activities in Crystal Palace Park? What would better financial implication of leasing land, not selling. So, like Rockhills, future generations could decide to return to park. Where is the update on the new Crystal Palace? (1000 jobs and huge private funding) Hear! A major benefactor/well-wisher/philanthropist is being actively sought - £100m, with no strings attached, except the obvious i.e. no major “development” (housing or otherwise) will be tolerated. No PFI! CPCA members (private individuals) do attend Main Group meetings. They also attend Local Dialogue meeting – where many Main Group attendees and Park Working Group members are notably absent. „Events‟ (listed today) all welcome. Aspects of Capel Manor and intrusion of the tram remain highly sensitive issues. Other public transport (on the fringes of the park) should be encouraged as stated. Why wasn‟t Capel Manor College‟s proposals and incorporation into the park measured using the „criteria‟ list? Ditto all other proposals including housing. Wind/eco tower a marvellous idea. Park rules – ok!

7

Presentations and Discussions
The LDA and the design team gave a series of presentations on masterplan proposals not covered in the February Main Group meeting. Participants then broke into smaller groups to discuss these, indicate their views with coloured dots and make written comments. The results are shown below. Green = support for the proposal Orange = opposition to the proposal Blue = undecided (Note that the assessment criteria previously agreed in the dialogue were sent out again with invitations to the meeting as an aid to participants’ appraisal of the proposals. This is attached as Appendix 4.) Comments from each breakout group have been kept separate.

Housing
Housing: Rockhills:
All proposals Move Caravan Club to suitable alternative location Return 4.7 acres of Caravan Club land to public park Use of 1.1 acres of Caravan Club land for housing to help fund park improvements (£8M) Use of 0.2 acres of Caravan Club land for cafe & community Facilities Support Oppose 3 24 14 Undecided 3 11 3

23 33

7

35

12

33

12

5

8

Housing: Crystal Palace Park Road (Sydenham):
All proposals Use a total of just under 1 acre on 2 gap sites between existing houses for new housing to help fund park (£4M) * No new housing on site of park keeper‟s lodge (no 5 storey block of flats) Use park keeper‟s lodge site for new, landscaped rangers‟ depot

Support 1

Oppose

Undecided

12

27

13

50

1

4

36

6

10

Housing
               
Build new Crystal Palace, which has 8 million private funding and will be run by a charitable trust that will fund running of park thus no need for housing. Where will the café move to? Over a period of time the general consensus is no housing on the park. The LDA just keep on raising this item – dripping water on a stone? Build housing over station – not on park. No housing on our park. Leading questions it is not an „ex‟ caravan site. So much for “no decisions have been taken.” No need for any new housing. It will pull down the appearance of the park. No housing on any historic park. Will housing be freehold or leasehold? The dotting procedure was very confusing to the group in the main hall. I think this group are not idiots but this process seems to be slanted towards having housing whether or no. Let caravan club stay – useful local business. No housing anywhere in the park, please. 12 million from proposed housing over a 15 year project could and should be raised as London-wide funding at less than £1million per year. 12 million is not a lot of monetary gain for the intrusion of the housing in the park and given that it is such a contentious issue. Building housing on an important park is a poor precedent and does not value parkland as an important part of London‟s amenities and is unsustainable development. Keep parkland for this and future generations. Maintenance depot is less than 7 years old – a waste of Heritage Lottery Fund lottery funding to demolish and exploit for housing. No joined-up thinking. Land take needed elsewhere for a depot. The questions are slanted. You cannot equate temporary „green‟ use of the company site to permanent loss to housing. What is to prevent a campsite or other use being re-instated in the future? A cycle of supposed park extension and permanent loss.
9



**********

      

No housing. Retain caravan site (has an „open-air‟ concept). Encourage Bromley to provide One o‟clock Club as a free facility as intended by Greater London Council (GLC) – this is, or should, be part of council tax provision. Keep the camping and caravan site. No housing on the park. No housing on park. No housing. Caravan site ok. Present site of One o‟clock Club is best location. The campsite could be run in conjunction with the park for visitors to specific park activities? Support housing subject to substantial/and net increase of publicly accessible parkland, and 24 hour secure park access.

**********
    Alternative sites for Caravan Club have not been presented. Is this off Crystal Palace Park site or elsewhere in park? Paying for park „improvements‟ by selling it off is unacceptable. Sets a precedent for all other parks. Poorly designed questionnaire e.g. maybe an option to 6 acres ex caravan club to park but without development, 6 positive questions and 1 negative. Housing plans should be broken down into different areas. 1) Affect on use – is land used? 2) Affect on habitat – can they be green roofed? 3) Affect on park character – can the park side be green walled? 4) Loss of land – does it need to be sold? Can it be rented out? Very poorly worded questions. Are they mutually exclusive? If we vote no for “no new housing….” does this mean yes to housing? While I stood here I saw several people get conflicting signals and change their votes. Housing, however it is presented, I feel most of the local community are strongly against it built in our park. Housing takes up very small area of what is now not park. It is a great social benefit in the current housing dearth, it will help lever in further funds for the park and make the reality of the overall proposal more credible. Housing will also enhance the security around the Rockhills entrance and bring more life and activity there. Please, no housing: it‟s unnecessary and hated (7000 signature petition…and another online petition underway).

  



10

Housing and Funding: Discussion
The results of the dotting exercise were presented back to the meeting as the basis for further discussion.    Some confusion with dotting exercise – so should be considered null and void. o Was confusing. o Is a rough and ready guide only. Is there a site for housing off the park e.g. by station that could be used? o Would be very expensive to build over railway void and Network Rail would also want share of profits. Main Group assessment criteria should be applied to all exercises at this meeting. o The current state of play seems to be covered by criteria. o Elements of the assessment criteria have been used to inform the Park Working Group discussions. o Assessment criteria were sent out with Main Group invite letter, please use today. Housing funding would contribute only £1 million per year – surely we can find this sort of funding for something so important. o Housing funding needs to be looked at in totality and in terms of the other funding it will attract. o It is unsustainable to continually take bits of park for housing – and remember that London‟s population is still growing. The majority of people are concerned that taking land for housing will set a precedent and make even more housing likely. Why not just remove the greenhouses from the plan? – That would mean that you wouldn‟t need the funding from the housing. o The money from the greenhouses would not be provided by the houses. o People are worried that money from housing would not be protected, they don‟t trust that it would be protected. o We need to take responsibility for funding – cannot expect London to fund it. LDA should consider option of palace on the top site as one that is viable. Would rather increase council tax than have a part of the park lost. o The park is for the people. The biggest physical obstacle in the park is the BBC mast. o Could some funding come from this (as rental)? o £20-30K comes from BBC and is used by Bromley for maintenance. If park attracts a national audience what will be the impact on transport, traffic, parking? o It is expected that public transport will be enhanced to cope, no extra parking will be provided. o An environmental impact assessment will also be undertaken. There will always be some areas of the park that are not purely park e.g. staff shelters, dumps, maintenance, parking etc. o If any park is taken, then additional green space should be found elsewhere in terms of the totality of parkland in London. o Funding for open spaces needs to be sustainable. Concerned that housing for park funding would set a precedent for raising money UK wide. All parkland is under threat due to lack of funding across the country. o This model of selling parkland to fund park improvements is not sustainable – it‟s a dead end.
11



 

   



 

 



 





  

        

Environmental impact assessment will consider implications of selling Grade II* parkland – will this not lead to the proposal being thrown out. Housing in the park would set a precedent – there is no guarantee that more housing would not be added in future. o Legislation is currently being passed to make the prospect of this more likely. Credibility of proposals depends upon the future governance of the park – this has yet to be addressed. o There will be a management and maintenance plan – above that the LDA or similar body would be placed. o LDA have a future option to take formal responsibility for the park. The only new building that should come back to the park should be a new crystal palace building. A new parks agency is needed to look after main parks in London. o This is a recommendation that should be made to the London Mayor to this effect. o Crystal Palace Park needs to come out of politician‟s hands to get the care it needs. Will there be charges to come into the park or to visit any of the amenities e.g. glasshouses. o There will be no charge for entrance, there may be charges for tree top walkway, glasshouse and parking. The London Parks and Gardens Trust is one body that looks after parks but they don‟t have the resources to get involved in Crystal Palace Park – more money is needed from government. o Other bodies that could help like English Heritage are having funding cut by central government and are therefore not in a position to help. o This is very concerning and adds uncertainty to the preservation of parks in future. Like the park proposals but concerned that there will be insufficient funding for it especially if funding from housing doesn‟t happen. o LDA needs input to improve funding situation. If the caravan site is repositioned this is going to cause drainage problems in nearby areas. The encroachment on green space is a significant problem. o Sports, BBC etc have all taken land from Crystal Palace Park. o There have been many changes to the park over time. o Housing is needed in the area. o The housing proposals would not actually reduce the total amount of green space in the park. Amazed at the cost of the re-generation of the park and wonder whether this is affordable. Why does park maintenance building need to be moved? – Doesn‟t seem worthwhile. Height of flats is not clear and that they may dominate the park prospect. Could we have costs of relocating the Caravan Club? The Caravan Club is only land loaned (leased); housing if built would mean land lost forever. Adding additional land to the park should be welcomed. We haven‟t seen the design detail of the housing so far. o Has not been produced yet. Need to explore other avenues for funding sources. Crystal Palace campaign was opposed to multiplex so surprised that it is not opposed to housing.
12

 

Housing should be judged against Main Group criteria – should have a specific exercise to do this – disappointed that criteria is being sidelined. Have been in this process 5 years many ideas in the master plan e.g. tree walkway, just seem to pop up out of nowhere. o Concerned that new park proposals are going to take such a long time to execute – does not compare well to the timescale achieved by Paxton.

Revised Afternoon Agenda
The following revised agenda was agreed for the afternoon. 1:35 1:45 2:00 2:15 2:30 2:45 3:00 3:15 3:30 3:45 4:00 Housing – design team comments Security, lighting Traffic, parking Dots and comments Sustainability Interpretation Dots and comments BREAK Review dots Future process CLOSE

Post-lunch Queries
LDA Next Steps  Next steps for LDA? - Are they taking the master plan to their Board? o Don‟t know whether has to be formally taken to Board though a presentation and discussion with Board has already been undertaken.

“No New Housing” Dots (on Sydenham housing sheet)  Has been some confusion about this – was meant to mean: o If you are pleased that LDA have dropped this particular housing option – then put a green dot. o Therefore we are going to do a re-count for the record. Concerned that wording was misleading with the housing questions dotting exercise



Because of the confusion over the dots on the dropped Sydenham housing proposal, views on this were recounted in the meeting and these numbers have been used in the meeting report. Things „Popping Up‟ in the Master plan  The master plan team is expert and everything is developed with a great degree of seriousness – things are not done on a whim or frivolously. The business plan is always taken into consideration.

13

Security and Lighting
Security and Lighting
Park open 24 hours Main pedestrian routes lit (with non-intrusive lighting) Help points at key locations Park patrols Limited CCTV coverage (car parks, main buildings) Improved co-ordination with police (radio link, security points etc) Support 13 27 29 40 30 36 Oppose 15 5 1 1 6 0 Undecided 17 6 5 1 2 3

Security and Lighting
           Ensuring safety for the animals especially waterfowl. “Bring back the parkies” said Ken Livingstone BEFORE he was elected Mayor, bring back parkies now that he is Mayor. Crystal Palace after dark has high crime rate. I‟d be extremely hesitant to walk through the park after dark. Don‟t think you can make it safe. CCTV is waste of money. Park patrols need to be really frequent – park warden great idea. Parkies are better than CCTV – they stop trouble before it starts, not just enables people to watch it on video once it‟s happened. There should be no lighting in 1) The English Garden 2) Cricket Pitch 3) Dinosaur area. These areas are home to bats and owls. Any lighting needs to be chosen by bat experts. How are you going to light up historical features without creating light pollution? Patrols at night needed (also day). Park patrols on foot very much needed for security and information. If the park is not totally covered by CCTV anyone causing trouble will do it out of sight of the cameras. Half a million pounds on CCTV would pay the wages of many park keepers for many years who would be the best deterrent possible. If park is open (and lit) 24 hours, what would the effect on wildlife be? Areas you show are very limited. Park patrols would be good. Present rangers are very helpful, but there need to be more, and on foot, not in vehicles. **********  Concern that peripheral “light ring” will affect value of marginal areas for nocturnal wildlife. These areas are especially important for role of park in connecting woodland habitats fragments (e.g. Dulwich Wood) and railway embankments throughout area. No security fencing anywhere in the park – including Capel Manor Fort.
14



   

No police in the park. Total reliance on paid „parkies‟ would eliminate the enforced/criminal Feeling. Would like to have a railing enclosure around the park. Signage needs to be discrete and appropriate in design. No obtrusive help point. I agree that by making the park busier after dark it will be safer (the current fencing system certainly doesn‟t stop people coming in if they want to). But patrols must be stepped up after dark to discourage vandals/muggers. **********

    o     



Park patrols could employ „volunteers‟ – perhaps senior citizens etc – equipped with two-way radio, digital cameras etc. My concern with 24 hour opening is mostly „ecological‟. Need to give nocturnal creatures a break (bats/owls) – even though lighting will aim to minimise effects. 24 hour park Yes! Yes! Yes! Do not think it is appropriate to have park open 24 hours – what is the point? The point is that is is accessible and people can use it if it is open 24 hours. I support it 100%. Crystal Palace park area is a crime hot spot. Do we need to make it easier for muggers etc to escape across the park? I can‟t quite believe that the park will open access 24 hours a day without quite obtrusive oversight – do we want rough sleepers? Lighting sounds fine but woodland, lakes need to be left in a natural state. Local common‟s open 24 hours. Muggers can escape anywhere!?! We need more accessible parks/parkland – not fenced parkland. Why is that attractive, to only use a park when someone unlocks it. I don‟t like being locked in when I‟m still enjoying the park and the evening with friends. We should be able to use it 24/7. In which case my friends don‟t have to walk me to my gate, help me climb over the gate/fence and then walk the opposite direction to them. Can we get rock-solid commitment to down lighting to avoid negative impact on nocturnal wildlife or coloured lights that don‟t interfere? Need to get London Bat Group input before plans go further. **********

   

  

Not convinced about more big-brother CCTV in a park. Surveillance society! Yes we have had lots of crime – including murder, and the existing fence/walls didn‟t stop it. Does CCTV include infrared? What are people up to in the park at night? Usually no good! Keep gates and railings (some very ornate and attractive). These keep most troublemakers out. We have had dinosaur vandalism, graffiti, car crime, a rape. Supposed housing overlooking security is a joke. No blue neon lighting as promised for the length of the roof of the multiplex, please. Park should be natural and dark (like countryside) at night. Not lit up like Oxford Street. (Also energy costs.) Police plans will need sustainability built in.

15

Access, Parking and Traffic
Access, Parking and Traffic
Improved pedestrian routes round park (including wheelchair, pushchairs etc) Enhanced cycle routes No public traffic in park (except for sport centre parking & special events) Redundant roads & car park areas returned to parkland Existing car parks retained and landscaped at Penge & Sydenham gates 250-300 parking spaces linked to stadium New car park at Rockhills gate, similar in size to existing car parks at Penge & Sydenham gates Occasional special events parking on park circuit & hilltop Promotion of public transport use Coach drop-off/pick-up points by new northern glasshouse & new sports centre Support Oppose Undecided

35 21 28

0 4 5

1 11 7

33 21

0 2

3 10

18

3

10

16

12

12

17 35 19

13 1 12

8 3 11

Access, Parking and Traffic
        No tramlink in park. Severe safety issues, uncertain of benefits? No parking on the top site (terraces) even on special events. No cars should be allowed in the park – it should be a green haven. “Inside the park” car parking should be strictly for the elderly and infirm only. Parking – what about school parties and walking groups who drive and park at the Penge Gate area. No parking at all in centre of park. No tramlink through the park. Make people use public transport. Stop companies (e.g. RAC) using car park as depot. Parking should be charged for, consistently, families included.
16

  

 

We don‟t want tramlines in the park. Tilman – you‟re kidding yourself if you think you‟ll get the “pretty” European version – it will be an extension of the Croydon Tramlink and look like the Croydon Tramlink. Ugly and covered in graffiti. Parking 1) Should not be charged unless for special events/occasions. 2) Many people drive to park to walk/exercise. To charge puts them at disadvantage. Penge exit to have only 30 car parking spaces? This is to cater for users to café, One o‟clock Club, play area, dinosaurs! Many mothers with small children/babies rely on a car. o And regular users like Bromley Health Walkers. Apropos of tramlink in the park – I witnessed a near-fatal accident in South Norwood Country Park involving the tram in which I was travelling and a dog. Safety issues? No charging for small car park at Penge Gate etc. **********



Encourage use of public transport for all (affordable). o Not tram in park though.

**********
   Parking and camping and caravan site are incompatible. Is there anywhere where parking can be underground? Overspill needs careful management. Regarding parking needs of the park, may I suggest a park users parking survey is carried out so it can be ascertained: o How far the car journey was? o Who were the people/animals in the car? o Nature of their reason for parking in the park? This will help in deciding parking charges. Paying for car parking only leads to people leaving cars along residential roads and causing circulation problems. Impact of cars to be kept to a minimum and I will support. If Latz sustainable design/parking ideas follow through fine. With living Bollards (my idea) „green‟ bollards. Fine, I support. Otherwise if there is a big traffic/car/concrete impact I will protest. Agree with all Tilman‟s points on disincentives to driving to park. I don‟t support any light public transportation devices within the park. Parks are for walking cycling skating. Unless elderly or disabled no such transport unless horse/cart. **********   Tramway not appropriate through the park. I do not want trams, coach parking and overflow parking on circular road and hilltop. You should consider the increase in commuter parking for the tram and if parking is charged for, displacement and problems for on street parking in residential roads e.g. Penge East station parking: empty, on street: full. Traffic at Rockhills (double roundabout etc) needs careful design to allow safe entry and exit from car park If you can landscape Penge entrance it will be one of the best things to have done. I support Tramlink and see its route through park as only sensible option (would create traffic chaos if up Anerley Hill). Many existing trees could be retained. I find this area is currently rather neglected and wouldn‟t walk there alone.
17

 

 

  



Don‟t make pedestrian routes too wide. In Crystal Palace people walk on the grass, so these are only needed for disabled.

Sustainability
Sustainability:
All proposals Harvest renewable energy from park (sun, wind, green waste etc) Iconic energy tower Harvest rainwater and re-circulate round park Sustainable drainage & flood management with new, open water features (ponds, rills, fountains) Improved lake & pond water quality through natural, ecological treatment Recycle all green waste & manure within park Support 1 35 17 33 Oppose Undecided

1 4 1

2 13 1

29

0

2

37

0

1

37

1

1

Sustainability
  It‟s important to manage quality of lakes. The towers are too high and there should not be two of them. They will overpower the skyline. **********    Can‟t the TV tower be used? Ecotower good idea. Energy towers are a concern for local residents (especially if illuminated). Wouldn‟t it be better to preserve the remaining historic remnants of tower and put new tower into park (Italian terrace). **********  The energy towers and viewing platform over subway would introduce distinctive skyline – positive! Is there a chance to remove the BBC tower to avoid a cluttered skyline, the view from say the London Eye would need to attract people. Perhaps incorporate broadcasting equipment on energy towers.

18

    

The wind tunnels are too near residential areas, especially the Triangle Gate/museum proposed site. I‟m all in favour of wind tunnels, but they need to be placed away from residential areas, as they will be too overbearing. Great, keep up the good work! Put really, really expensive flats in the wind tower! ;) Energy – solar power not mentioned – less intrusive than wind values. People who live on the park must appreciate that all residents‟ views are valid, and not just theirs. Especially the ones saying we‟ll set a precedent allowing housing development. Their houses did set as a precedent as they are on the park. Wind tunnels is a great idea. **********

  



Yet to be convinced of the environmental benefits of towers (plural?) Sustainable energy, water etc should not be a reason for filling park with buildings, waste tips, towers etc. It is a precious park, which is for leisure and nature. Skyline could get very cluttered; o 2 x wind tunnels o 1 x TV transmitter o 1 x viewing platform… We need to ensure that the „energy/sustainable‟ design of the tower is meaningful i.e. it works. An icon in its own right is not enough. I notice, if there are two towers there will be a clash in skyline with the existing masts – it doesn‟t look good.

19

Interpretation
Interpretation:
All proposals Orientation points at each park entrance and clear signs in the Park Additional park information at Crystal Palace station Staffed information and assistance points as the “human face of the park” On-site interpretation of features of interest Appropriate events, performances and public art in the Park Focal points for dinosaurs, ecology, the Crystal Palace and Park history Protect subway & open it to public with new museum & viewing point Support 1 36 Oppose Undecided

0

1

35 31

0 0

3 2

32 34

1 0

2 3

36

0

2

41

4

10

Interpretation
     Additional park information at station – agree all points. Park overview needs to be at bus station as well as railway station. Provide information on existing wildlife. Treetop walk and energy towers mustn‟t happen before a museum. This is a priority. Wonder if the station is the correct place for Crystal Palace Park „interpretation‟. Many people access the park from Triangle. **********      Museum - ?Station building? What about park information point at bus terminus (lots of people will come by bus to visit museum, surely)? There are many residents on Anerley Hill and behind who would be affected by the energy tower. Take them into consideration. I trust that Dr. W G Grace will feature around the cricket pitch and pavilion. Interpretive strategy must include elements that will encourage teenagers to use the park in a positive way. Signage should be limited – too often it‟s an eyesore and prevents „discovery‟.
20



Not too much signage please – too much would visually intrude and take away the surprise of „discovery‟, „suspense‟. **********

        

The museum is very laudable and should be developed further – I like the integration with other interpretation in the park. Concerned that some of this is a smokescreen for “expanded retail opportunities”. Hurrah! for museum. Good that museum is relocated and I like proposed location and also use as viewing tower. Liked the interpretative emphasis on nature/energy as well as historical items. Subway scheme a missed opportunity for something really „special‟. Can the new building be in the style of the old palace? Museum plan sounds very expensive – who will fund it? Great! Keep up the good work! The museum should open from 10am until 4pm every day. Pleased the good ideas suggested by John Payne to build a structure over the subway to protect it and offer a covered space for a multi-use function is being proposed. Would like it acknowledged publicly!! **********

   

Please don‟t let it get too intrusive. For most people this is a PARK. Very important to have good design for all signage around the parks and to make the information panels not too intrusive. Would like to hear more detailed discussion about vision and scope for museum. What is to be the governance structure of any future museum - or the park itself if the museum is to be included with that? How will this be decided and who will be doing the deciding? Who will decide who does the deciding? Where is a future museum to be situated? Is the subway decided? If so, by whom? If a building is to be adjoining the subway, how many trees are to be felled, and where? What will be the capital cost of a future museum? How will a future museum be funded in terms of both capital and revenue expenditure? Will any design be open to competition? Will any competition be advertised in Official Journal of the European Community (OJEC)? If museum is to be in the subway area, how will the constraints imposed i.e. by Municipal Open Land (MOL), the Crystal Palace Act, Area of Archaeological Interest, adjacent to a conservation area, Grade II* listed? When is a new museum likely to happen – it must take precedence of e.g. tree walks, glass houses and power towers.

21

Way Forward
  Ken Livingstone‟s powers are not agreed. o It is Bromley who will decide on the planning application for the master plan. A lot of money to be spent and yet not a real idea of how much this will be. o How much has the consultation/dialogue process cost to date (that could have been spent on the park). o Don‟t have exact figures, it is an incredibly complex and sensitive project. o We want to make sure the master plan is absolutely right so it is worth investing in. o LDA would get more support for the plan if housing was dropped. Could the Park Working Group start to think about funding models so that it could make some recommendations to the Main Group. o CPCA have not taken part in the past due to code of conduct, but perhaps now could contribute in future. Have seen a lot of new material today – plan will not be available for view for a few weeks – what further time is left to comment on this? o The master plan is an outline – the detail on the plans will be done in up to five years time and there will be time then to look at the detail of each zone. o Lots of people would be interested in continuing involvement in the Dialogue on an as and when, ad hoc basis to comment on the plan moving forward. The final plan may still have some amendments prior to submission to Bromley. o Getting planning through Bromley will not be easy – plus there may be outside objections. o LDA/masterplanners may need to come back to stakeholders during this submission period. Will the new mayoral powers come into play at the same time as a conclusion of the planning, submission (around September 2008)? LDA have an additional consultation process as well as the Dialogue. o Latz have employed Local Dialogue to inform and engage the wider public. o The publicity that Local Dialogue are producing is supposed to be informing and consulting. o Concerned that Local Dialogue are promoting, not just informing. o The involvement of Local Dialogue is intended to enable the public, as well as this informed stakeholder group, to be included in consultation on the master plan. The energy towers and museum – detailed design yet to be worked up. Museum Task Group – future work/task for this group is yet to be established. People are free to contact Bromley during the plan submission period to express their support (or not) of the master plan. Would like assurance that comments made to date will be taken account of by the master planners. o The Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) submitted with the masterplan will outline how inputs from Dialogue and consultation have been used. Local Dialogue - welcome their involvement but consider that their role has become blurred (towards promotion) due to their involvement in the Capel Manor planning submission.







 

   



22

Tree Top Walk
 Think it‟s a fantastic thing – thought we agreed it last time – surprised that there are objections to it this time.

Park Working Group
 The Park Working Group has no decision powers on behalf of Main Group. o The remit of the Park Working Group is to present options to the Main Group. o The Park Working Group should not write letters in support of planning applications relating to the park (e.g. letter to Bromley written regarding Capel Manor sent by The Environment Council on behalf of Park Working Group members).

23

Appendix 4

Crystal Palace Dialogue Assessment Criteria List
A list of assessment criteria was drawn up by the park Working Group in 2003. The criteria below are based on that list, but have been arranged into groups of similar factors to make them easier to use. They have not been put in any order of importance and if you feel other significant criteria are missing, we would like to hear your views on this.

Addressing the sense of place & heritage value of the park  Does the proposal enhance the special qualities of Crystal Palace Park and the surrounding area?  Does it create or maintain a “sense of place”?  How does it deal with the Crystal Palace heritage?  To what extent does it increase the profile and attractiveness of the area for local residents and for visitors?  To what extent is the proposal innovative? Green open space  What effect does the proposal have on the extent of managed parkland and wild space?  What effect does it have on the level of biodiversity within the park? Community benefits  How does the proposal meet community needs in relation to sports, recreation, culture & education?  What is the target catchment area of the proposal (i.e. local, regional, national, international)? Local impacts  What are the environmental impacts of the proposal in terms of such matters as traffic generation, noise and pollution?  What are the impacts upon the local community?  What are the implications for parking?  What are the implications for public transport provision?  To what extent will the development of the proposal cause disturbance to the park?

24

Viability  Are the proposals realistic & achievable?  What are the financial implications of the proposal in terms of capital cost, revenue costs/income and future investment potential?  How has this proposal worked elsewhere?  To what extent does the proposal complement or compete with other local facilities/schemes?

Community support   Does the proposal enjoy the support of the community? Is it supported by other relevant organisations?

Long Term Strategy  Does it contribute to a long term vision for the park?  Does it contribute to a long term vision for the whole community? Design  Is the design of an appropriately high quality to enhance the character and appearance of the park as a whole?  Does it preserve or enhance long distance news to and from the park? Access & security  Does the proposal enhance or inhibit access to the park?  Does the proposal safeguard the security and safety of the park’s users?

NWA 30/1/07

25


				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Stats:
views:14
posted:11/14/2009
language:English
pages:28