These remarks were placed in the visitors book at the Crystal Palace Partnership Transport Exhibiton which ended its run at Upper Norwood Salvation Army building on the 5th June 1999 - there will be an extended viewing period at the National Sports Centre see Latest News.(Now ended-July 1999)
As near as possible, the letters are an accurate transcription of what we saw, with no editing - including some from very young visitors.
"This is all part of Bromley's web of deceit and corruption. If you continue with this farce you will deserve the same reputation. "Oh what a tangled web we weave when we practice to deceive." You can't serve two masters God and Mammon. One has to go! This complex is the symbol of an age where anything goes. The quality of life is nil. Any common or garden greenhouse can be designed by computer, built by robots and run by a moron. Read hypocrisy and covetousness. Luke 12"
"I oppose the multiplex. There is a sheer necessity for an environmental impact."
"The traffic problems highlighted here strengthened my opinion (if it needed strengthening). The new complex should not be built."
"Could a booklet or document of this exhibition be produced that could be consulted in local libraries as there is too much information displayed to take in and consider while standing and reading boards and like most visitors I have only limited time? I could read a written document far more quickly and then consider the options."
"If the multiplex development in the park goes ahead the area will be saturated in traffic and none of this will help."
"The Upper Norwood area is already a bottleneck re: traffic. How is this scheme going to improve the environment (pollution, noise, etc) in the Triangle with a large multiplex scheme on one corner? If we had an environmental impact survey we would at least know how bad it will be.Fitting 21st century traffic plans into 19th century roads just don't go!"
"Can you put 5A side goals in please.
More things for kids - lots of room."
"I dread the possibility of the proposed development in Crystal Palace Park. Even with the best of the traffic proposals (I don't know which is best) there is no way that the area can handle the projected traffic which will be attracted to the area.
I found the display exhibition extremely confusing, especially trying to match it to the questionnaire. The 'books' had maps with the road names so small that it was impossible to decipher them without a powerful magnifying glass! Forgive me for thinking that the whole consultation is to try to appease local opinion. After the ignoring of local protest to date, it is quite clear that no-one except us cares what local residents think!"
"The main problem is the proposed construction of the largest leisure complex in London adjacent to a 3-street town in an area of London, which grew up in Victorian horse-and-cart days and is now a built up residential suburb.
This exhibition is about fiddling with the symptoms when the proposed 18 screen multiplex etc. is the cause of the problems.
The leisure use is equivalent to the floor space and uses of Leicester Square and Piccadilly Circus but no-one is proposing putting in 3 tube lines and a major railway terminus (cf. Charing Cross)"
"The exhibition is only being held because of the poor consultation re: the Crystal Palace 'multiplex' in the park. Most of the traffic options are only being considered because the multiplex is being proposed. I am against the multiplex and the extra congestion and pollution it will cause. However, I am in favour of extra public transport, cycle lanes etc."
"The proposed 'development' on the Crystal Palace Park ridge should not go ahead. It will encourage vast volumes of extra traffic that local residents do not want.
If the scheme is stopped, as most local residents deserve, then not many of these proposals would be being contemplated in this exhibition.
Stop the multiplex to help keep existing traffic levels bearable. This would obviate the need for pay parking schemes on residents streets which are likely to be highly unpopular, especially if you have friends to visit by car."
"The whole project is the result of the proposed development of the Crystal Palace Site. This will so increase traffic that no proposals are going to alleviate the extremely unwelcome results of it.
"Many of the proposals introduce an 'inner city' feel to the area which is totally inappropriate.
"We would like to comment that no mention has been made of the excessive traffic congestion as a result of the new 'development' at Crystal Palace. To improve traffic flow, you must restrict the traffic coming into the area, and building a multiplex cinema complex will do nothing to reduce traffic.
"Please do not have a cinema at the development."
"The reacen I don't want the park
"What's needed will be totally different if, by any hideous accident, the multiplex does go ahead. It's pointless pretending the transport/traffic/pedestrian/environment needs and cost/benefit analysis will be the same with or without it. I am profoundly alarmed and depressed by the drawings that treat the multiplex as a reality to be catered for. I refuse to think, at this point, about whether the roads round about need speed bumps or extra trees planted (!!!) or whatever. We were not consulted about whether we wanted a multiplex. Until it is quashed and we are consulted about what we do want (a park for locals or a commercial mega-scale enterprise drawing people in from miles around) there's no point making transport plans."
"The exhibition is pretty enough, but I have 3 important criticisms:
1. It is not simple enough to understand for people not used to interpreting data presented in this way, thus excluding a large section of the local population.
2. The naming of the revolting new leisure development 'The New Crystal Palace' is an insult to anyone who cares about the area.
3. There is no mention of the crucial fact that nearly all of the proposed changes would be completely unnecessary were it not for the proposed leisure development, which nobody wants."
"I am opposed to this massive development not just because of the tremendous traffic congestion which will follow but because of the green space being annexed by developers, taking business away from local shops and thereby once again causing a desert in the local community."
"I dislike the Building Scheme. There is no Environment Impact Option and no proper consultation. There will be a traffic increase. By not having proper consultation Bromley Council is departing from its Agenda 21 system."
"The traffic calming schemes proposed for Fountain Drive/College Road are wholly inadequate for the increased traffic flows if the multiplex is built. It is already a dangerous fast road and will get worse."
"When I spoke to the staff they were not keen to admit to any connection between these proposed traffic control measures and the building (against the publics wishes) of the hideous leisure complex in the park.
Apparently these works would be going ahead regardless of the cinema development which begs the question - how will any of your bus lanes, traffic 'calming', traffic lights (we have enough thanks), speed bumps, etc etc. cope with the 17,500 extra cars that arrive every Saturday and the extra visitors all through the week.
One can't help but feel that we are being asked to approve traffic proposals, thus our approval being used as a yes vote for the complex. The two are related - admit it, we don't want your leisure complex or your 17500 cars."
"A public house is not an appropriate place for the community wide consultation. Please assure us that you will consult with those who for religious or other reasons would not enter this space."
"Most of these proposals are not needed. Streamline the flow of traffic and integrate bus services certainly, but there is no necessity for residents parking in roads like Lawrie Park Avenue and Lawrie Park Road. All these plans will spoil the area for the residents. I am very concerned and apprehensive."
"Please don't turn our village into disco street with endless lights. This is a thin excuse for a most unwanted multiplex."
Top of Page Return to Meetings Reports Index
Last updated 18/7/99