Bromley Unitary
Development Plan Proof of Philip
Kolvin Crystal Palace
Park Crystal Palace
Campaign Section
16
When the vast edifice reflects the rays of the sun, it sends forth millions of coruscations, and forms an object of surpassing brilliance.
Walpole
16 Strategic statement
(0296C, 0297C, 0296E, 0297E) 16.1 The Campaign wishes to see
some broad objectives for the Park to be established in the
Unitary Development Plan. It has suggested the following
wording: Crystal Palace Park
and environs objectives 1 To maintain
and enhance the role of Crystal Palace Park as the
principal strategic park for south-east London.
2 To recognise
the high value placed by local people upon Crystal
Palace Park as open parkland. 3 To respect the
historic importance of the site of the Crystal
Palace. 4 To preserve
and enhance the listed terraces, the listed subway
under Crystal Palace Parade and other heritage
features of the Park. 5 To ensure that
any development proposal for the site accords with
the status of the Park as Metropolitan Open Land, a
listed historic park and a Conservation Area.
6 To protect the
residential environs of the Park. 7 To improve the
facilities offered by the National Sports Centre,
so far as consistent with its status as
Metropolitan Open land. Crystal Palace Park is
the principal strategic park for south-east London, and is
highly valued by local people as a place for parkland
recreation. The Park was also the site of the Crystal Palace
from 1854 to 1936, and the Park contains important features
associated with that era, including the geological time
trail, the dinosaurs, terraces, statuary and a subway. The
Crystal Palace museum is an important historical and
educational facility regarding the Crystal Palace. The Park
is Metropolitan Open Land and is listed as Grade II* on the
Register of Historic Parks and Gardens. Most of the Park is
a Conservation Area. There is strong community commitment to
preserving the Park both as open parkland and an historic
park, and to preventing substantial new development upon
it. The National Sports
Centre requires refurbishment. This may be achieved without
the need for significant new building. Any refurbishment
should include commitment to reducing parking, reducing the
non-sporting buildings and removing unnecessary areas of
hard-standing. The Park is surrounded
by residents of five boroughs, and its future should be
planned with the full participation of the local community
and the neighbouring boroughs. While regeneration of certain
areas near to the Park is a desirable objective, this should
not be attained at the expense of the Park itself. An
environmentally sensitive treatment of the Park will itself
produce regeneration benefits, being an attractor of
neighbouring business and residential uses. 16.2 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. Thirdly, it is an important open space
for Londoners, being the only Grade II* listed park in South
East London. Fourthly, 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.
To fail to do so is to waste an opportunity. 16.3 Bromley has elected to
make no statement about the Park in the Plan, save a passing
reference in paragraph 3.7, and of course the site
designations for the top site and the National Sports
Centre, neither of which reflect the open space or heritage
values of the Park. A Park of this importance frankly
deserves something by way of reference, if not guidance and
leadership, in the statutory plan for the
Borough. 16.4 Bromley's reasons for not
making such a statement are that the future of the Park is
protected by the policies in the Plan and that objectives
should not be set out for one specific site. This does not
stand up to scrutiny. First, the Green Book itself makes it
clear that development plans may make proposals for specific
sites, and of course they frequently do. Second, what is
suggested is not a development proposal but some clear
guidance for future development proposals for what is an
extremely important site. Third, the 1994 UDP did include a
strategic statement for Crystal Palace (page 54). The change
of tack between that Plan and this is inexplicable. Fourth,
even in this Plan, Bromley include strategic statements, for
example in relation to Biggin Hill Airport (see Second Draft
UDP page 17) and Ravensbourne College (Pre-Inquiry changes
para 8.18b). Most strikingly, text is included in relation
to the National Sports Centre - see para 8.18a of Second
Deposit Draft. Given the recent history of conflict
regarding this Park, which has spawned many legal actions,
tens of thousands of hours of community and local government
time and millions of wasted pounds, the opportunity should
now be taken to set out a broad list of parameters, along
the lines of those I suggest above. I am not aware that
Bromley actually objects to any of them, rather than to the
principle of having them in the Plan. If the objection is as
to the principle of its inclusion rather than its content, I
would submit that the development plan is an intrinsically
appropriate location to reassert the guiding principles in
relation to this strategic park. If the objection is that it
belongs in Part II of the Plan rather than Part I, I would
observe that Biggin Hill's guidance is in Part I, but if it
is thought that it belongs better in Part II, I would not
oppose that. 16.5 As a subsidiary matter,
paragraph 3.7 introduces Crystal Palace Park by a sidewind,
which the Council has signalled it wishes to maintain. I
would argue that if the Park is worth dealing with, it is
worth dealing with it properly, by recognising its special
status for Londoners and the nation.
Top
of Section;
Previous Section (15);
Next
Section (17);
Contents
©Philip Kolvin