Bromley Unitary
Development Plan Proof of Philip
Kolvin Crystal Palace
Park Crystal Palace
Campaign APPENDICES (from Rebuttal
Proof)
42. Correspondence with London Borough of Bromley regarding proposed modifications
Letter: Peter Martin to Philip Kolvin - 20 November 2003
Letter: Peter Martin to Philip Kolvin - 8 December 2003
Letter: Peter Martin to Philip Kolvin - 12 December 2003
e-mail: Philip Kolvin to Peter Martin - 15 December 2003
43. Minutes of meeting of Executive of London Borough of Bromley, 17 November 2003
44. Campaign's
response to Bromley's proposed
modifications
Back
to Rebuttal Proof
©Philip Kolvin
Correspondence with London Borough of Bromley
regarding proposed modifications.
Stuart Macmillan Chief Planner Civic Centre, Stockwell
Close, Bromley BR1 3UH Your ref:________ Our ref:________ |
|
Mr. Kolvin Crystal Palace
Campaign |
Objectors ref: 0296V |
Dear Mr Kolvin,
2nd Draft Deposit Unitary
Development Plan (UDP)
Crystal Palace Proposal 8 and proposal 9
I write concerning the decisions of the Executive of Bromley Council on Monday 17th November. The decisions affect objections to both Proposals 8 and 9 in the UDP as well as objections to the removal of the MOL designation for the site of the former Crystal Palace. The decisions cannot be confirmed until after a period for a possible call-in for scrutiny is allowed and until after they have been ratified by a meeting, of the full Bromley Council on 1st December. Nevertheless I considered it necessary to write to you now in view of the approaching deadline for submission of proofs of evidence on these items. I have suggested to the Program Officer that the deadline for submission of proofs be extended to 5th December in order that objectors can consider these proposed changes.
The Executive of Bromley Council resolved on Monday 17th November to retain the Metropolitan Open Land (MOL) designation for the site of the former Crystal Palace in the UDP and delete the proposal (Proposal No. 9) affecting the site of the former Crystal Palace. It was acknowledged, however, that long term aspirations for the Crystal Palace site remain and that future schemes may emerge following discussions with the London Mayor, adjoining authorities and the local community.
The Executive also resolved to retain the Major Developed Site (MDS - Proposal No. 8) for the area around the National Sports Centre and the Stadium and that the criteria for redevelopment is included in the text of the UDP for purposes of clarification. The criteria, which are taken from Government guidance (Annex C of PPG2) include the requirement that there should be no greater impact than the existing buildings on the openness of MOL, new buildings should not exceed the height of existing buildings and that they should not occupy a larger area of the site than existing buildings.
It is to be hoped that there can, be some reso!ution of the objections before the Inquiry sessions set aside for Crystal Palace objections in January. If this affects your position concerning the progress of yo~\objettion please let the Programme Officer, Keith Sherlock, know as soon as possible either in writing or by phone 020 8313 4636. It is appreciated that discussions as to the precise nature of the alterations to be made may be necessary before objections can be finally resolved and conditionally withdrawn. It is hoped that such discussions can take place before the conclusion of the Inquiry.
Please contact me if there is any further information you require.
Yours sincerely
Peter Martin
Head of Heritage and Urban Design
020-831-4548 Internet
www.bromley.gov.uk |
|
Mr. Kolvin Crystal Palace
Campaign |
Objectors ref: 0296V |
Dear Mr. Kolvin,
2nd Draft Deposit Unitary
Development Plan (UDP)
Crystal Palace Proposal 8 and proposal 9
Further to my letter to you of 20th November I write to confirm that the decisions of the Executive of Bromley Council on Monday 17th November were ratified by the full Council on l`'December.
I referred in my letter of 20th November to discussions on the precise nature of the alterations being necessary before objections can be finally resolved and conditionally withdrawn. Later this week I will circulate to you a list of suggested alterations to the 2nd Deposit Draft UDP required as a consequence of the decisions referred to above. I will be seeking your comments on these so that an agreed list of alterations can be put before the Inspector before the Inquiry closes.
Please contact me if there is any further information you require
Please contact me if there is any further information you require.
Yours sincerely
Peter Martin
Head of Heritage and Urban Design
Stuart Macmillan Chief Planner Civic Centre, Stockwell
Close, Bromley BR1 3UH Your ref:________ Our ref:________ |
|
Mr. Kolvin Crystal Palace
Campaign |
Objectors ref: 0296V |
Dear Mr. Kolvin,
2nd Draft Deposit Unitary
Development Plan (UDP)
Crystal Palace Proposal 8 and proposal 9
Further to my letter to you of 8th December please find attached the suggested wording to the paragraphs of the UDP consequent upon the decisions of the Council to delete Proposal 9 concerning the top site at Crystal Palace, restore the MOL designation for the top site and to clarify the requirements for the MDS (Proposal 8).
I would be pleased to receive any comments you may have on the wording. A copy has also been given to the Inspector through the Programme Officer. It is hoped that an agreed version can be put before the Inspector during the Inquiry sessions on Crystal Palace that are due to start on 6'h January or at any event before the Inquiry closes.
If the attached wording affects your position concerning the progress of your objection please let the Programme Officer, Keith Sherlock, know as soon as possible either in writing or by phone 020 8313 4636. Please address any comments on the wording itself to me either in writing, by phone or by email.
Yours sincerely
Peter Martin
Head of Heritage and Urban Design
Crystal Palace Proposals 8 and 9
Suggested alterations to the 2nd Draft Deposit Unitary Development Plan (2DD UDP)
The following are the list of alterations suggested by the Council consequent upon the decisionsof the Executive on 17th November 2003 (as ratified by the Council on 1st December 2003) to retain the Metropolitan Open Land.
Ref in 2DD UDP Proposed
alterations p. 16 New para 3.7(a) to follow
existing para 3.7 Crystal Palace Park is a
regional park of strategic importance for south east London
with a significant Victorian heritage. Future development on
the site of the former Crystal Palace i supported inn
principl provided it complies with the Crystal Palace Act
1990 and reflects the site's importance as the previous
location of a landmark building. Any rpoposals will be
brought orward in consultation with the Mayor of London,
English Heritage and the local community. The National
Sports Centre and Athletics Stadium within the Park have
importance for regional, national and international sport.
It is envisaged that refurbishment or redevelopment will be
necessary in the future and as a conesequence the complex of
buildings is designated as a Major Developed Site (proposal
8 in Ch. 16). p. 91 para 8.18a Delete last sentence and
replace with: A planning brief will be
prepared as supplementary planning guidance in consultation
with the London Mayor, English Heritage, Sport England and
the local community. The brief will accord with Annex C pf
PPG2, in particular, with the requirements for redevelopment
in para. C4. These include the requirements that new
buildings: will have no greater impact than the existing
development on the openness of the MOL and, if possible have
less; will not exceed the height of existing buildings; and
will not occupy a larger area of the site than the existing
buildings. These requirements allow for the relocation of
built development within the MDS provided there is no
increase in footprint. p. 197 Proposal 9 Delete proposal 9 from the
schedule of Proposals. Proposals map 1DD, March
2001, page 1. Delete proposal 9, restore
MOL designation for the rea effected by Proposal
9.
From: Philip Kolvin
[mailto:pkolvin@2-3graysinnsquare.co.uk]
Sent: 15 December 2003 13:29
To: Martin, Peter
Subject: RE: Crystal Palace / UDP
Thanks, Peter.
If it transpires that you can let me see the report to the Executive, I would be grateful to see it. Was the full Council meeting on the subject Part II? Did the Council get literally nothing other than the minute of the Executive? Was there no report or background papers?
Finally, do you have evidence from any other parties re. Crystal Palace Park. If so, it would be good if I could have copies of their material as well as yours. Of course, I am glad to pay for the copying. Perhaps if you could let me know what you have got, then we discuss the mechanics of it.
Regards
Philip
-----Original Message-----From: Martin, Peter [mailto:Peter.Martin@bromley.gov.uk]
Sent: 15 December 2003 13:06
To: Philip Kolvin
Subject: RE: Crystal Palace / UDP
Phillip, I regret I'm not able to send you the report to the Executive on 17th Nov as it was a Part II report - I am checking with the Legal Section to see whether you might be entitled to it nonetheless. I am sending you the minute of the meeting on 17th Nov - also the wording that you requested. The Council meeting merely confirmed the minutes of the Executive 17th Nov.
Peter
-----Original Message-----
From: Philip Kolvin [mailto:pkolvin@2-3graysinnsquare.co.uk]
Sent: 14 December 2003 23:12
To: Martin, Peter
Subject: RE: Crystal Palace / UDPSorry - I meant 17 Nov, not 17 Dec.
Philip Kolvin
-----Original Message-----From: Philip Kolvin [mailto:pkolvin@2-3graysinnsquare.co.uk]
Sent: 13 December 2003 20:07
To: 'peter.martin@bromley.gov.uk'
Subject: Crystal Palace / UDPDear Peter,
Thanks for your letter of 12 December, which I shall be considering together with the Campaign's steering group and the other societies whom we are representing.
Would you be very kind and send me (in so far as they are public):
A. The report(s) to the Executive on 17 Dec and the Council on 1 Dec.
B. Minutes / resolutions of those meetings.
I will be pleased to get these either electronically or by fax to my Chambers on 0207 405 1166.
Please will you also send me your proposed alterations in an electronic format.
I do not think I will be able to give you a formal response by 19th December, so I would be grateful if you would let us have your evidence by that date.
Many thanks
Philip Kolvin
Contents;
Top
of this e-mail;
Top of
this Appendix 42
Minutes of meeting of Executive of
London Borough of Bromley
17 November 2003
Extract from the Public
Minutes of the Executive meeting held on
17th November 2003.
EXECUTIVE
17th November 2003
326 CHIEF
EXECUTIVE'S ABSENCE
Report CPO0321
The Executive noted a Head of Human Resources report on events
surrounding the Chief Executive's absence between 13th-17th October
2003. The Head of Human Resources would be reporting to a future
meeting on a number of procedural issues.
327 CRYSTAL PALACE
- METROPOLITAN OPEN LAND AND
MAJOR DEVELOPED SITE DESIGNATIONS IN THE UDP
Report ES03362
The Executive agreed to retain the Metropolitan Open Land designation for the top site at Crystal Palace and also to retain the major developed site proposal for the area around the National Sport Centre and Stadium.
The meeting ended at 9.45pm.
Contents;
Top of
this Appendix 43
Campaign's response to
Bromley's proposed modifications
Crystal Palace Park Proposal Sites 8 and 9
Response of Crystal Palace
Campaign to London Borough of Bromley's suggested alterations
to the 2nd Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan (2DD
UDP)
Ref in 2DD UDP
London Borough of
Bromley's proposed alteration Campaign's
comments Campaign's proposed
text (Additions / deletions to text of original objection
shown deleted / underlined) p. 16 New para 3.7(a) to follow
existing para 3.7 Crystal Palace Park is
a regional park of strategic importance for south east
London with a significant Victorian heritage. Future
development on the site of the former Crystal Palace is
supported in principle provided it complies with the Crystal
Palace Act 1990 and reflects the site's importance as the
previous location of a landmark building. Any proposals will
be brought forward in consultation with the Mayor of London,
English Heritage and the local community. The National
Sports Centre and Athletics Stadium within the Park have
importance as a venue for regional, national and
international sport. It is envisaged that refurbishment or
redevelopment will be necessary in the future and as a
consequence the complex of buildings is designated as a
Major Developed Site (proposal 8 in Ch. 16). Support the
principle of a strategic statement in Part I of
Plan. Oppose statement
supporting development on top-site for all the reasons given
in Mr. Kolvin's proof of evidence, and because it is
inconsistent with MOL designation of site. Clear objectives
should be stated. Crystal Palace Park
a To maintain and
enhance the role of Crystal Palace Park as
b To recognise the
high value placed by local people upon Crystal
Palace Park as open parkland. c To respect the
historic importance of the site of the Crystal
Palace. d To preserve and
enhance the listed terraces, the listed subway
under Crystal Palace Parade and other heritage
features of the Park. e To ensure that
any development proposal for the
f To protect the
residential environs of the Park. g To improve the
facilities offered by the National Sports Centre,
so far as consistent with Crystal Palace Park is
The National Sports Centre
and Athletics Stadium within the Park have importance as
a venue for regional, national and international sport. The
complex requires refurbishment or redevelopment and
is consequently designated as a Major Developed Site
(proposal 8 in Chapter 16). The Park is surrounded by
residents of five boroughs, and it future should be planned
with the full participation of the local community and the
neighbouring boroughs. p. 90 Policy G2(iv) "
limited infilling
or redevelopment in accordance with the guidance in PPG2
Annex C within the designated major developed sites at the
National Sports Centre
" The criteria should be
imported expressly into a new policy G2A for the Sports
Centre. "
limited infilling
or redevelopment in accordance with Policy G2A within the
designated major developed sites at the National Sports
Centre
" p. 91 New policy G2A Bromley's response not
known at present. Adoption of the criteria
in the proposed policy G2A is the basis for the Campaign's
conditional withdrawal of its objection to the designation
of the National Sports Centre as a Major Developed Site.
Without such criteria, the Campaign's position is that the
site should simply retain its MOL designation, against which
any future development proposals may be tested. Within the National
Sports Centre as shown on the Proposals Map any
redevelopment or infilling must comply strictly with the
following criteria: Redevelopment consisting of complete or
partial redevelopment of the site shall: (a) have no greater
impact than the existing development on the openness of the
park; (b) increase
opportunities for both outdoor sport and recreation in the
park; (c) enhance the visual
amenities of the park landscape; (d) remove unnecessary
structures, areas of fencing and hard
standing; (e) improve access to
the National Sports Centre, in particular for the
disabled; (f) enhance the nature
conservation interest of the Park; (g) not exceed the
height of the National Sports Centre building or the
athletics stadium; and (h) not occupy a larger
area of the site than the existing buildings. (i) be sited, so far as
practicable, so as to remove the elevated walkway and
restore the land on either side of it to
parkland; (j) take account of
comprehensive, long-term plans for the site as a
whole; (k) be of high
architectural quality in keeping with the history of the
park and its status as a Conservation Area and a Grade II*
listed park; (l) integrate with the
parkland surroundings of the site; (m) ensure that any
buildings are for indoor sporting use by the community and
elite athletes and for sporting events, with any other uses
being ancillary thereto; (n) not create an
unreasonable traffic impact on the surrounding area,
including by discouraging vehicular access and by
integrating with improved public transportation
provision. For the purpose of
criterion (g) the relevant height excludes the height of the
floodlights. For the purpose of
criterion (h), the relevant area is the aggregate ground
floor area of the existing buildings (the "footprint"),
excluding temporary buildings, open spaces with direct
external access between wings of a building, and areas of
hard standing. Infilling shall be
limited to the filling of small gaps between existing built
development which shall: (a) not encroach onto
any areas which are currently green open space or otherwise
reduce the openness of the park; (b) not exceed the
height of the existing buildings; and (c) not lead to a major
increase in the developed proportion of the
site. p.91 para. 8.18a Delete last sentence and
replace with: A planning brief will
be prepared as supplementary planning guidance in
consultation with the London Mayor, English Heritage, Sport
England and the local community. The brief will accord with
Annex C of PPG2, in particular, with the requirements for
redevelopment in para. C4. These include the requirements
that new buildings: will have no greater impact than the
existing development on the openness of the MOL, and if
possible have less; will not exceed the height of existing
buildings; and will not occupy a larger area of the site
than the existing buildings. These requirements allow for
the relocation of built development within the MDS provided
there is no increase in the footprint. The development criteria
should not be referred to in commentary but in the policy
itself. A planning brief will
be prepared as supplementary planning guidance in
consultation with the London Mayor, English Heritage, Sport
England and the local community. The brief will accord with
the criteria in Policy G2A and with Annex C of
PPG2. p.197 Proposal 9 Delete proposal 9 from the
Schedule of Proposals. Agree Proposals Map 1DD, March
2001, page 1 Delete proposal 9; restore
MOL designation for the area affected by Proposal
9 Agree
and environs objectives:
the principal a regional
strategic park of strategic
importance for south-east London.
site Park accords with
the status of the Park as
its Metropolitan Open Land, listed historic
park and Conservation Area
designations.
its status as
Metropolitan Open land and the criteria
in policy G2A.the principal a 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.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. Provided that any such
project respects the sensitivities of the Park, this will
not harm, and may well benefit, both the environment and the
amenities of the Park. The Council has adopted crirteria for
the regeneration of the complex to achieve these objectives
(see Policy G2A).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 is
likely to will itself produce
regeneration benefits, being an attractor of neighbouring
business and residential uses.
Contents; Top of this Appendix 44
24/1/04 Updated: 24/1/04