Bromley Unitary
Development Plan Proof of Philip
Kolvin Crystal Palace
Park Crystal Palace
Campaign Section
9
For towns and cities, elements of sustainable development include creating and protecting green space.
Sustainable Development, The UK Strategy[29]
9 Open Space
Analysis 9.1 I have enquired of Bromley
whether it has undertaken either an open space or
recreational needs assessment. On 16th September 2003, the
Planning Assistant, Development Plan, wrote to me,
stating: 9.2 I find it hard to
understand how Bromley is able to defend its decision to
remove all open space protection from approximately 5
hectares of such important open space without having
undertaken any such assessment. Be that as it may, I have
thought it prudent to assist the Inquiry by providing such
data as I can on open space provision in this part of
London. 9.3 In "Green Capital, the
Mayor's State of the Environment Report for
London"[30], an exercise of mapping London's MOL and
Green Belt by borough was performed.[31] It was
revealed that Lambeth, Lewisham and Southwark were in the
worst ten performing boroughs in terms of their percentage
given over to MOL and Green Belt. Lambeth was third worst
with 4.3%. Lewisham was seventh worst with 8.5% and
Southwark tenth worst with 16.8%. The average was 31.5%.
Bromley was, by this measure, the greenest borough because
of its huge tracts of Green Belt lying on its southern
borders - 7,732 hectares, which is over 20% of the Green
Belt in London. This demonstrates very clearly why the loss
of a few hectares is not felt acutely in Bromley's town
hall, but is felt very acutely in the much less green
neighbourhoods surrounding the Park. 9.4 Green Capital also showed
gains and losses in recreational open space from 1998-2000
by borough. The net loss figures are of a very low order. To
lose 5 hectares of recreational open space in one fell
swoop, and particularly open space of this policy
importance, would be rare, if not unique, in the
capital. 9.5 All of the boroughs
surrounding the Park have identified areas of open space
deficiency, based on the criteria drawn up by the London
Planning Advisory Committee. However, not all the boroughs
have used the same criteria, so objective and comparative
analysis is not easy. As may be seen: 9.6 In addition to the quantum
of green space, it is pertinent to examine the population
densities in the area, since the denser the population, the
greater the need for green space to alleviate the pressure
of urban living. The Office for National Statistics has
published data on residential densities in
London[37]. The average borough has 4,572 per square
kilometre. Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham have,
respectively, 9,947, 8,506 and 7,096 people per square
kilometre, making them the fifth, eighth and twelfth densest
boroughs in London. Again, this reflects their inner city
status. Bromley has the least dense population - 1,972 per
hectare, again underlining the differing priorities between
the residents of its verdant outer suburbs and the inner
city suburbs who are reliant on the Park. 9.7 However, perhaps a more
surprising statistic is that Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham
are also the fifth, eighth and twelfth densest boroughs in
England and Wales.[38] This reflects the fact that
the Inner London boroughs are the most densely populated in
England and Wales. This re-emphasises the need to provide
and maintain green space for their enjoyment. 9.8 It is also important to
note that the population trends in London are upwards. So,
Inner London is projected to increase from 2,765,000 in 2001
to 2,863,000 in 2011 and 2,963,000 in 2021, an overall rise
of 7%. Outer London is projected to increase from 4,450,000
in 2001 to 4,607,000 in 2011 and 4,773,000 in 2021, an
overall rise of 7.2%.[39] Therefore unless, which
seems improbable, the amount of open space actually
increases, the pressure on open space will
increase. 9.9 It is possible to carry
out a more sensitive analysis on a borough basis. Table 1: Population
changes in the five boroughs.[40] Borough 1991
population 2001
population Increase 1991 -
2001 (%) 2016
estimate Increase 2001 -
2016 (%) Bromley 275,841 295,532 +7% 300,658 +2% Croydon 298,486 330,587 +11% 337,530 +2% Lambeth 244,834 266,169 +9% 304,379 +14% Lewisham 231,582 248,922 +7% 273,339 +10% Southwark 219,112 244,866 +12% 289,725 +18% 9.10 These figures demonstrate
again that there have been very substantial increases in
population over the last decade in the boroughs surrounding
this Park. Over the decade or so to come, the main increases
will be in the three inner London Boroughs abutting the
Park. This again suggests a need to enhance open space
provision and not to deplete the stock of it. 9.11 A still more local
analysis has been very hard to accomplish, since ward
boundary changes make proper comparisons impossible. The
studies we have carried out are appended.[41] The
most robust figures are for the Bromley wards around the
Park, which showed a 7.15% increase in the decade to 2001.
For all areas, while minimal reliance may be placed on the
ward data, the trend is clearly upwards, as suggested by the
borough figures given above. 9.12 As much as the raw data
concerning green space, the perception of Londoners
regarding their green space is important. The 2002 Annual
London Survey, conducted for the Greater London Authority by
MORI, showed that Londoners are concerned about loss of
green space, which, according to the report "underlines the
importance residents place on their immediate environment."
In fact, 45% of those canvassed cited loss of green space as
being a problem, up from 41% in 2001. 9.13 While none of this data is
by itself conclusive, it represents a best attempt to put
objective material before the Inquiry, in the absence of any
attempt by the London Borough of Bromley to consider the
overall provision of green or recreational space in general
or MOL in particular. 9.14 Before leaving this
section, I ought to comment qualitatively on provision for
children's play, as a father who lived in Norwood, and who
is a frequent visitor to all of the parks in the area. The
quality of children's play facilities in Crystal Palace
Park, although recently improved, remains very poor.
Remembering that this is a Metropolitan Park with a
substantial sub-regional catchment, the facilities are
small, quite old-fashioned and unimaginative. They are also
a very long way for residents of Norwood to walk,
particularly with small children. It is worth pointing out
that there is very little other provision for Norwood
residents. The nearest alternative play facilities are in
Norwood Park, which is a long way from Crystal Palace Park,
and where the facilities are usually nearly derelict. It is
interesting to compare facilities in Crystal Palace Park
with those in Dulwich Park, a far smaller park with a
smaller catchment, but whose modern, colourful and
imaginative play equipment is almost always used to bursting
point. The idea of losing to development informal open play
areas on the ridge adjoining Norwood is of acute concern to
many Norwood residents, in my view rightly. 9.15 In More than Swings and
Roundabouts, Planning for Outdoor Play[42] it is
pointed out that adults perceive playgrounds as small areas
of land with standard playground equipment to be used in a
prescribed way. In that context, the standard playground in
Crystal Palace Park is somewhat depressing. There is also an
absence of variety of the form encouraged by More than
Swings and Roundabouts, so as to facilitate use by children
of all ages, such as skateboard and skate parks, bike tracks
and jumps, hangout or youth shelters, adventure playgrounds,
other open access play projects, city farms, woodland spaces
and nature reserves, fun trails and activity courses etc.
All of these activities imply the need for more open space
rather than less.
"The Council has
not as yet undertaken an open space or recreational needs
assessment."
Top of
Section; Previous
Section (8);
Next
Section (10);
Contents
Notes:
[29] - HMSO, 1994.
[30] - 2003
[31] - Appendix 19.
[32] - Appendix 20.
[33] - Appendix 21.
[34] - Appendix 22.
[35] - Appendix 23.
[36] - Appendix 24.
[37] - Appendix 25.
[38] - Office for National Statistics.
[39] - Demographia, sourced from Office for National
Statistics
[40] - Office for National Statistics data.
[41] - Appendix 26, source: Office for National
Statistics.
[42] - Children's Play Council, 2002, page 73
©Philip Kolvin