Bromley Unitary Development Plan

Proof of Philip Kolvin

Crystal Palace Park

Crystal Palace Campaign

APPENDICES (from Rebuttal Proof)


LIST of APPENDICES

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

 APPENDIX 42

Correspondence with London Borough of Bromley

regarding proposed modifications.

 

Stuart Macmillan Chief Planner

Civic Centre, Stockwell Close, Bromley BR1 3UH
Telephone: 020-8461 3333 Fax: 020-8313 0095
Extension:
Direct Line: 020-831-4548 Internet www.bromley.gov.uk
e-mail: peter.mertin@bromley.gov.uk

Your ref:________ Our ref:________

Mr. Kolvin

Crystal Palace Campaign
33 Hogarth Court
Fountain Drive
London
SE19 1UP

Objectors ref: 0296V

20 November 2003

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

Contents; Top of this letter


 

 

 

020-831-4548 Internet www.bromley.gov.uk
e-mail: peter.martin@bromley.gov.uk

Mr. Kolvin

Crystal Palace Campaign
33 Hogarth Court
Fountain Drive
London
SE19 1UP

Objectors ref: 0296V

8 December 2003

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

Contents; Top of this letter


Stuart Macmillan Chief Planner

Civic Centre, Stockwell Close, Bromley BR1 3UH
Telephone: 020-8461 3333 Fax: 020-8313 0095
Extension: DX5727 Bromley
Direct Line: 020-831-4548 Internet www.bromley.gov.uk
e-mail: peter.mertin@bromley.gov.uk

Your ref:________ Our ref:________

Mr. Kolvin

Crystal Palace Campaign
33 Hogarth Court
Fountain Drive
London
SE19 1UP

Objectors ref: 0296V

12 December 2003

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.

Contents; Top of this letter


 

-----Original Message-----

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 / UDP

Sorry - 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 / UDP

 Dear 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


APPENDIX 43

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


APPENDIX 44

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 and environs objectives:

a

To maintain and enhance the role of Crystal Palace Park as the principal a regional strategic park of strategic importance for south-east London.

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 site Park accords with the status of the Park as its Metropolitan Open Land, listed historic park and Conservation Area designations.

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 its status as Metropolitan Open land and the criteria in policy G2A.

Crystal Palace Park is 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.

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). 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).

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. 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.

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

 Contents; Top of this Appendix 44



Back to Rebuttal Proof

 

24/1/04 Updated: 24/1/04