CRYSTAL PALACE PARK Record of the Main Group Meeting Saturday 14th October 2006 INTRODUCTORY NOTE The meeting was facilitated by Nigel Wes away & Associates and The Environment Council This report is a typed transcript of the flipchart record written (in open view of all the participants) during the meeting. To make the record more intelligible, some explanatory notes have since been added by the facilitator. These are shown in bold italics All other wording is as agreed by participants on the day, apart from minor grammatical corrections and clarifications. Comments recorded are made by individuals and these views are not necessarily shared by other participants. Because the record is inevitably cryptic in places, it is recommended that it should not be used to brief people who did not attend the meeting without a full explanation from a participant. Text Box: Agreements reached by the whole group are boxed like this. CONTENTS Attendees.................................................................................................................... 2 Apologies .................................................................................................................... 4 Agenda........................................................................................................................ 4 Ground Rules.............................................................................................................. 5 Introductions................................................................................................................ 5 Working Group Reports .............................................................................................. 5 Museum Task Group............................................................................................... 5 Park Working Group................................................................................................ 6 Sports Working Group............................................................................................. 6 Comments............................................................................................................... 7 Masterplanners ........................................................................................................... 7 Tramlink ...................................................................................................................... 8 Consultation/Dialogue................................................................................................. 8 Capel Manor College ................................................................................................ 10 Special Main Group................................................................................................... 10 Sports Update - Discussion....................................................................................... 10 Events ....................................................................................................................... 11 Agenda Items for Next Main Group(s) ...................................................................... 12 Websites ................................................................................................................... 13 Graffiti Walls.............................................................................................................. 13 Housing Pros & Cons................................................................................................ 13 Rockhills (proposed site within the existing Caravan Club area) .............................. 13 The Lodge (replacement of existing park keeper’s house by Sydenham Gate) ...... 15 Sydenham Gate (sites currently occupied by nursery, depot etc)............................. 15 Actions From March 06 Meeting ............................................................................... 17 Crystal Palace Park Events Programme................................................................... 18 General Comments................................................................................................... 20 Process Concerns Agenda ....................................................................................... 23 Evaluation ................................................................................................................. 25 Attendees Name Organisation Rosemarie Falaiye CPCA John Bellerby CPCA Abdel Ouhla Local Wildlife Alan Munday Streatham Society/Croydon Society Norman Edgell LFSR/London Swimming Steven Vail CPCA Pat Palmer CPDT Fran Lindsay CPCA Colin Niven CPCA Nick Goy Local resident Rosanna Cavallo WBRA Richard Williams CP Labour Party Craig Richardson FoCPP Joyce Bellamy Metropolitan Public Gardens Assoc Steven Dowbiggin Capel Manor College Brian Spicer English Table Tennis Assoc Sharon Baldwin LBC Town Centre Manager Ray Hall PPI / New Crystal Palace Ltd Leo Held Norwood Society Peter Austin Norwood Society Senaka Weeraman Judy Raphael CPCA Richard Francis Local citizen Karl Richler Local resident Edith Watt E Dulwich Society M J Heath Local person M Clarke CPC Noel Winter HAS Madeline hall Capel Manor Jeremy Walker CPCA Ruth Locke Sydenham Society Ken Thomas NSC user M Warwick Local resident I Baker-Hunt Local resident Maureen King Local resident Janet Clifford Local resident and CPCA John Payne Resident Peter Hore Tessa Jowell MP Office Audrey Hammond CPCA Peter Brooks CPC local Pam Gray Local resident Paul Hudson Local resident Keith Adams Local resident John Medhurst Local resident Barbara Thomes Local resident Janice Hardy Local resident Faith McCulley Local resident Mike King The Environment Council Peter Martin LB Bromley Nigel Westaway Facilitator Luke Zander Resident R Frith LDA Jo Gibbons J&L Gibbons Jon Dickinson Robin Buckle LDA Emma Wheelhouse LDA Charles Anglin Dialogue Winsome Grigor The Environment Council Ali Howes Involve Vivien Day CPC B Kidson LP Ray Sacks Crystal Palace Campaign Karen Moran B Green Party Owen Luder Norwood Society Annike Dyllid Meadowcroft Griffin Architects Ellinor Micheal V Welch Resident Jo Bryant Resident Katriona Oglivy-Webb Local resident and also member of different local groups Nigel Hawkins Resident Phil Meadowcroft Meadowcroft Griffin Deborah Pryer Resident Susanne Elkin Resident, CPCA, CPPAG Luke Albanese TfL Matt Yates TfL Chris Gaster Cllr Crystal Palace Ward David Elkin Resident Ann Neesom Resident Stephen Sin Resident Sue Nagle Traders John Canvin Cllr LB Bromley Harold Clyne CPC Dorothy Clyne CPC Malcolm Woods English Heritage JM Prosser CPCA Jim Lodge Stephanie Lodge Theresa Connolly FOE, RWG, CPCA Doreen Heath Lambethan’s Society John Greatrex JPS Jim Williams Self Joseph Figeuira CPAG Rachel Ward Pat Trembath Sydenham Society Julia Farr Sydenham Society John McKiernan Fraser Lowe CPCA Adam Jenkins LB Bromley Ken Lewington Crystal Palace Foundation Don Bianco CPCA and local resident and BRRA Adrian Hill Dulwich Society Ellena Rushbrook Resident Val Shawcross GLA N Evans Capel Manor Doris Gadsby CPCA Anthony Kendall Southward Salvation Army Owen Luder PPRIBA Norwood Society Keith Adams Local resident Michele Medhurst Local resident Kalina Palka Local resident and park user and CPCA Anita Dyson CPCA – friends of CPCA and local resident BJ Dews Local resident Sybil Friend Local resident S Lown Local resident D Andrews Local resident Ruth Moss Local resident Rebecca Fraga Local resident S Stapleford Local resident LC Maver Local resident Apologies Name Organisation Melvyn Harrison CP Foundation Ken Kiss Crystal Palace Museum Jacqui Lait Kim Humphreys Mick Firth A. Barnett The Caravan Club Agenda 9:30 Introductions, agenda review Working Group reports Masterplanners Consultation and dialogue Sports centre update 11:00 Break Capel manor Tramlink Housing proposals 13:00 Lunch Housing review Events and licensing Sustainability Dates and Actions Flexitime! 15:00 Close Ground Rules • No smoking in the building • No food or drink outside the dining area • Mobiles off • Stick to agreed agenda • One person speaks at a time • Watch the wall record! • Come back at agreed times • Be respectful • No audio-visual recording • Joint press statement if needed Introductions • About 6 new people present today • MG haven’t met for 7 months o Waited until the masterplanners were in place but will have to meet more frequently from now on • Should have met before events license app submitted • Need to advertise MG meetings in South London Press? And Croydon Guardian • Some people here represent groups and some represent private individuals • RWG aren’t here but some individuals from RWG are • Press aren’t allowed at this meeting so shouldn’t have photos taken • Want people to stick to the agenda Working Group Reports Museum Task Group A report on the Museum Task Group was given by Sharon Baldwin. • A small group has been formed from the working group to focus on issues re a future museum for Crystal Palace • The objective is to create a draft consultation document to bring to the main group for discussion. Those involved are: o Sharon Baldwin, representing the district centre o Ken Kiss from the current museum o Melvyn Harrison from the CP Foundation o Timothy Mason, an independent museum consultant who brings with him a wealth of experience and a valuable network of experts for us to work with o Janet Vitmayer the director of the Horniman museum , who represents an excellent example and has a local experience o The Dulwich picture Gallery will also be represented • The idea is to have a small group who can then access resources and experts as required • We have had one initial meeting to discuss the way of working and to be clear on timescales and objectives etc. • The museum has the opportunity to include a wealth of information on social history, sport, the first events in the park, the dinosaurs, park interpretation, artefacts, paintings and much more • Our work will be to focus on the future opportunities, not to discuss the current museum • In preparation for our next meeting we have asked for information to be gathered on the current customer base • This will be collected from data already available at park sites including the sports facilities and café as well as collecting information from the access points into the park • We will research the use and content of other museums and similar attractions, review expectations and customer groups and look at management structures and sustainability • We will report back to both the working group and main group Park Working Group A report on the Park Working Group was given by Jon Dickinson. • Jon Dickinson has been on the PkWG for about 3 years representing young people • The PkWG have met 6 times since the last Main Group meeting in March • Ray Sacks and Jon Dickinson were involved in the masterplanners selection and interview process on behalf of the dialogue group • The WG have talked more about the housing proposals and have also had a walk round of the park to understand exactly where the housing may go • Have also discussed the NSC quite a bit as were told the news that English Heritage would not give consent for the demolition of this listed building. Have considered the other options that may be put in place • The WG have met Vijay who is the events coordinator for the park and have discussed ideas for events • Have also reviewed ideas for immediate improvements for the park Sports Working Group A report on the Sports Working Group was given by Peter Hore. • SpWG met on 11th April, 31st July and 28th September • SpWG has had to take into account that there will be no comprehensive new development of the Sports Centre until after the Olympic Games – all possible sources of funding will be focussed on 2012 • Most discussion has been on the future of athletics, swimming and diving in the light of this situation • Crystal Palace as a centre for a Pre-Olympic training camp will be actively pursued – South London Partnership and Go South Go will be heading up the bid. SpWG will be meeting with Go South Go officials early in November • Meeting with Ken Livingstone discussed – he was very sympathetic to the dialogue process and pledged his long term support for a new sports centre but re-emphasised that 2012 will take priority • Current improvements to Sports Centre include upgraded entrance, new lifts, improved reception area and lodge bedrooms - all this includes better access for the disabled • Next meeting 30th November [Further to the Main Group meeting, the LDA has been asked for clarification regarding: 1. Is it proposed to demolish the Jubilee Stand and if so when 2. what will be the expected seating capacity The Planning Framework proposed the demolition of the Jubilee Stand, and this still forms part of our plans for the greening of the centre of the park. We would expect to commence demolition post 2012, when the Athletics Grand Prix relocates to Stratford and the stadium capacity can be reduced. The capacity post Olympics is likely to have no more that 3,000 permanent seats, which will cater for local and regional events. Additional seating for larger events could be accommodated on sculptured grass banks around the athletics track"] Comments • When did MG approve creation of museum WG? • Representatives on the panel were not ‘community representatives.’ • Clear support from the majority of meeting for the work of the Museum Task Group • Foundation should have been consulted (but sits on museum task group.) • Can WG’s provide a business plan? o Costing will be done at options development stage. o Problems with the museum trust aren’t being discussed by the museum task group • Governance of the existing museum needs to be first priority • Revisit the museum issue at the next MG meeting • Peter’s role on sports WG was originally on Tessa Jowell’s behalf. Still reports back to her. Also a local resident and park user. • Review of WG membership at next mg meeting • Have alternative funding methods been investigated by the park WG? No Masterplanners Tilman Latz introduced the masterplanning team and their approach to the park. Details of the team are attached to this report. • If planning application goes in summer 2007, it could take a year to approve. Gradual phased plan to improve park over next 10-15 years. • A part of the work is analysing current conditions. Will transform use of the space • Bromley are currently in charge of the planting • Because the fees are likely to be over £155,000 an international competition was launched • Consultation a vital part of the planning • Some events will take place in the park, but not all year • Take into account the issue of light pollution. Need to balance with security issues, but low-light systems are possible • Masterplan will contain options, costings and recommendations, which will fit into an overall budget • Concern over effects on local communities • Masterplanners have been/will be informed by both the LDA and consultation • Will look at park perimeters and interaction with community • At present, Mayor has ‘negative powers’ so can veto. However, doesn’t get involved in local planning applications. Bromley Council will remain the planning authority regardless of who owns the park • LDA strongly committed to seeing this project through Tramlink TfL briefly described the route options they are considering and explained the consultation programme. Details of the programme are attached to this report. • Why is there no 4th option ending at the station? o Should discuss this at TfL’s consultation • Widen the consultation area • Don’t ignore Dulwich/Sydenham side of the park in consultation • Tramlink should be part of the park consultation • Whichever route is chosen, this will be incorporated into the Masterplan • There is an option for no tram at all • Statutory reason for separate consultation • Consultation runs for 2 months Consultation/Dialogue The facilitator explained how the dialogue and the new public consultation work would fit together. (See diagram below.) He then asked Charles Anglin of Local Dialogue (LD) to introduce himself and the wider public consultation programme. • Wider public consultation can report back through a standing agenda item at main group, or in whichever way the group finds the most appropriate • Important that the public exhibition is in the summer • LD trying to facilitate ‘active outreach’ to as wide a spectrum of people as possible • LD quite clearly working for the masterplanners and LDA. Fortnightly meetings to ensure the two processes are complementary • Didn’t have to happen this way, but consultation has been prioritised • Link with LD to better promote/advertise these meetings • The park dialogue process was never intended to engage 1000’s of people, so linking with LD will do that • Very important that it is an impartial approach o This consultation is about understanding the issues and feeding back so that the design team addresses them • People will have opportunity to work through options • Would like Main Group to have sight of details of things like questionnaires o LD will consult stakeholders Mar May Apr June July Oct 06 Feb Dec Nov Jan 07 Main group PkWG PkWG PkWG Public workshops More options/proposals More options/proposals Prep for MG Reality check on draft design Responses to draft design Public Exhibition Present final scheme: m inor tweaks only Consultation/Dialogue programme Main group Main group PkWG PkWG PkWG Special MG Public workshops (Draft 3…) Options/proposals Options/proposals Community presentations Prep for MG Hsg concerns, work prog, consultation strategy events/festival ideas Reality check on options/proposals so far Responses to options and proposals outreach activities (make contact, identify additional needs/ideas, recruit for public workshops and dialogue) Capel Manor College Steve Dowbiggin of Capel Manor spoke about his plans. • Wouldn’t want community land taken for development. • Need to get young people involved in park – apprenticeship very important • Integrate courses into the park e.g. maintenance • Involve the college in the park • Would want to involve students but don’t want to take work away from contractors • Have been talking to a local school o Level 2 students have to work with school children • Wasn’t anything in planning application about opening hours or the farm • Capel Manor is a further education establishment • Supporting letter to planning application included opening hours • Once farm in place, would like to open to public • Did Capel Manor destroy trees? Two trees were already vandalised/damaged, removed trees will be replaced • Change of days was due to feedback • Hoping to achieve four day opening to public in revised planning application • At planning committee 100-150 bedrooms were discussed • Planning application was for 3 classrooms • 2 staff flats and accommodation for 3 students • Everyone wants a farm in the park so there should be no restrictions on access to animals Special Main Group • Possibility of a Main Group meeting in November for community presentations • If not enough time at this to cover everything could have another in January • What happened to presentations given at PkWG by different proposals for the hilltop, etc? These can be updated & presented again if authors wish to. • Tilman’s team will listen to presentations given at Main Group • Public haven’t been asked about alternative proposals to LDA’s • Criteria list will be discussed at Main Group meeting in November • Community presentations would be about the park and its future Sports Update - Discussion • Concern that Mayor wants Tramlink as a means to develop the top site (Mayor’s question time Nov ’03) o This was before our positive consultations o Suggestion that we ask the Mayor for clarifications on this point • Swimming – pools can be relocated • Support for refurbishing the heritage site from one participant involved in sport • New temporary pool will either have a diving pool with a moveable floor to accommodate children, or current learning pool will remain open Text Box: Agreed that there should be a Special Main Group for community presentations • If build a temporary pool, will have to have a temporary building. Will seek permission to remove other structures to mitigate this • Long term plan for swimming is to build a new sports centre as originally planned but with a reduced number of seats. Still a 50m pool but not sure if diving facility will be included (there will be one in Stratford) – to be discussed further • Full implementation of plans for NSC will take place when new sports centre is built • Funding not available to build a new sports centre until after the Olympics o Temporary building needed to ensure continuation of swimming & diving • Should spend some of the money for London Olympics in Crystal Palace – would be good for morale and may mean don’t need housing o But Crystal Palace outside of drive time to Olympic village o Need to speak to ODA • Will construction of pool close to train station impact on future transport options? o No • Will need public enquiry about putting up temporary pool – not sure why need to build one o Know plant is 40-50 years old o Pool itself and diving pit are serviceable - continuing to use them is still an option o If don’t move pool, will still have the podium until 2014 • Is it possible to put temporary pool in a place it may stay long-term? o No, because of difficulties in construction and because pool would need to be closed during construction • Worry about construction in the park o Will there be any park left? o Yes • Crystal Palace needs reliable swimming facilities for people training and acclimatising for Olympics Events • Don’t want alcohol sold in the park • Don’t mind the nice events like theatre • Fencing would be to ensure people’s safety whilst events are going on o Some don’t want fencing there • Finishing time can be amended on planning application. Could finish at 11pm • Corporate event locations haven’t been agreed yet but would be in a marquee • Fencing would be around a small compound area • What about noise pollution? o Will discuss with masterplanners and bring in acoustic specialist o Authorities carry out checks too • When will there be consultation about the lake being removed? Masterplanners will consider bowl and lake in their work • Lake stops people from jumping onto the bowl and vandalising it • License isn’t reviewed every year, can be reviewed at any time if issues arise • Money from alcohol will go back into the park • Have always had fencing up at events for the duration • Concern about number of pubs in area already • Police are not happy about the proposals either • Worried that there aren’t extra police to employ for events • Worry about effect of so many people on the grass • Concerned about corporate events in the park • It’s not a corporate park but if events bring in money then it goes back into the park • These events will probably happen anyway even without this license. This just makes it easier • Alcohol won’t fund events • Unticketed events – less control over numbers of people – how are these paid for? Will alcohol sales contribute? o Market the events in a specific way so as not to get too many people or can fence the site and issue free tickets • 7th November at 2.45pm Bromley Civic Hall for license hearing • Concerned about what could happen • People can still drink in the park but there will be no sale of alcohol outside events • Café won’t be allowed to sell alcohol • Some areas such as children’s park and bus drivers’ mess are currently included in license application • Issue about parking and height/style of fences • Application will be revised after this meeting • If license isn’t 365 days then events could be judged on their merits • Concern about police force being able to respond • New events being put forward are listed at back of room o Don’t see it expanding any more o Don’t want park to be too busy • A lot of time has been set aside to consider this application by Bromley Licensing Committee – have faith in them • NSC have to apply separately to have events • Already have events happening in the park that sell alcohol. Two rangers have power to act as landlords and can close down the sale of alcohol • Already have corporate events too • Would like events in the park but not alcohol • Unhappy that events license has been put with the alcohol license – should be treated separately Agenda Items for Next Main Group(s) • Working group membership • Museum task group – membership, coverage • Housing • Community presentations • Use of criteria • Sustainability • Further sports issues? Actions Action Who Check all wg reports are on website LDA TfL consultation slide in report (not routes though) TEC/NWA Charles@localdialogue.com 020 7357 6606 Arrange a Saturday morning meeting with Capel Manor College Check Mayor’s intention for development on hilltop NWA/TEC Send out licensing flyer with meeting report NWA/TEC Websites www.crystalpalacepark.org.uk www.lda.gov.uk Graffiti Walls Housing Pros & Cons The original agenda for the day set aside over an hour to discuss the housing proposals, some of which would be in small groups, to give everyone more opportunity to speak. However, despite frequent promptings from the facilitator, this time (and more besides) was used up in the morning – much of it on discussions about the dialogue process. The small group sessions had to be abandoned and participants were instead asked to comment over lunchtime on the draft ‘pros & cons’ sheets for each proposed housing site. Each sheet is reproduced below, along with the comments received (in italics). Task for each sheet: to ensure that the pros and cons list gives a full account of the range of views about housing. Rockhills (proposed site within the existing Caravan Club area) Pros • None of the proposed housing is on land which is currently within the park or accessible to the public – or likely to be for the foreseeable future • Brings 4 (out of 6) acres of Caravan Club land back into the park at an early stage • Generates income for the park • Creates a more secure park edge • Improves Rockhills entrance and encourages more use of this area of the park (currently underused) • Replaces existing hard surfaces with soft landscaping/park facilities • Finance more likely to be available now for re-landscaping hard surface areas as part of general park improvements package • If not done now, no Caravan Club land ever likely to be brought back into park use • Demonstration of ultra-green housing • New residents’ spending will benefit local economy (to a greater degree than Caravan Club) • Acceptable new site provided for Caravan Club (this is a condition of the proposal) • Supported by the majority of those attending the 2005 public consultation Cons • Permanent residential use of 2 acres of Caravan Club site – loss of possible long term opportunity to bring these into park use • Loss of attractive existing landscaping on north east corner of Caravan Club land • Removal of Caravan Club to new site – where? • Overlooking of this part of the park by new houses/impact on skyline (concerns about height of development) • Over-development of a small site • Noise • No social housing proposed • Extra traffic generated at a junction which is already congested • Financial benefits unknown/insufficient to justify the disadvantages • Loss of Caravan Club users’ spending in local area • Worrying precedent for CP and other parks • Uncertainty about quality of design Note: if no new housing at Rockhills, long term options are either i) retain Caravan Club (ie land never brought into park use) ii) re-locate Caravan Club at a later date – land released for park use iii) Caravan Club closes when its lease expires, with future land use undecided A general concern for all the sites: if planning permission is obtained, residential development could take place very quickly. Need to be certain other park improvements are not compromised or left behind. Additional Pros • Gateways to the park are very important and creating activity at each (by residential and other means) is critical to the integration of the park into its surroundings Additional Cons • Totally cynical to say LDA needs housing to pay expense of improvements. This is a major asset for London – not a hole in a corner • Traffic problems near very busy junctions • People in houses in parkland = noise – music, bar-b-ques, etc • Timeframe on development would be necessary if this were approved • Very busy junction • Overlooking/impact on sky line/urban visual intrusion • More traffic spilling out onto Crystal Palace Park Road and the parade and vice-versa • More carbon from all the 4 wheel drives parked outside and used by residential units • Too many properties on such a small site • Keep caravan park – it’s great to have it in park – welcome influx of tourists • Why can’t the park have a new improved caravan park and enhance the entrance. Please don’t build what is effectively a village on our park The Lodge (replacement of existing park keeper’s house by Sydenham Gate) Pros • Income generation • Proposed site already in residential use • Improved security – overlooking of park • New residents’ spending - benefits for local economy • Demonstration of ultra-green housing • Supported by the majority of those attending the 2005 public consultation Cons • Permanent loss of potential parkland • Visual intrusion/overlooking of park • This land could be effectively incorporated into the park • Scale/height of proposed development • Traffic generation • No social housing proposed • Worrying precedent for CP and other parks • Uncertainty about quality of design A general concern for all the sites: if planning permission is obtained, residential development could take place very quickly. Need to be certain other park improvements are not compromised or left behind. Additional Cons • Too big – would dominate entrance. There is already enough overlooking for security • Too big/large mass/height • Worrying precedent • I strongly agree with the cons • This Lodge is a 4 storey block, 6 apartments per floor luxury development • Not on! • We have 1 lodge already – hostel for NSC. Don’t need private development • ‘Supported by the majority of those attending the 2005 public consultation’ – because the questions were too complicated and difficult to answer Sydenham Gate (sites currently occupied by nursery, depot etc) Pros • Income generation • Proposed sites currently built on and excluded from park • More secure edge to park • Sites are isolated between existing buildings & could not contribute usefully to park even if incorporated • Site of unused depot brought into productive use • New residents’ spending - benefits for local economy • Demonstration of ultra-green housing • New premises provided for nursery • Supported by the majority of those attending the 2005 public consultation Cons • Permanent loss of potential parkland • Traffic generation • No social housing proposed • Nursery will have to move • Uncertainty about quality of design (appropriate to existing villas on either side?) • Worrying precedent for CP and other parks A general concern for all the sites: if planning permission is obtained, residential development could take place very quickly. Need to be certain other park improvements are not compromised or left behind. Additional Pros • Sensitive infilling could be acceptable • Can’t we get the funding money from elsewhere – is only 7 million (?) gained. Is it worth it? Is there a greater political agenda underlining this proposal Additional Cons • Would have to reimburse HLF for new maintenance building so revenue from housing immediately reduced • ‘Sustainable’ housing may be energy-efficient, but it will still use energy! And on a park! It will therefore contribute to global warming • ‘Pavillion’ seems very large given it is only for sports use. Very worrying precedent for Crystal Palace • I strongly agree with the cons General Comments on Housing • I don’t want housing in the park at all. It’s a bad idea in principle. I also regard the caravan site as a good amenity – what will you have to pay them to leave? • Housing would not be anybody’s first choice for funding but many people feel that if it is the only option on offer to fund the improvements, then we should compromise • Agree that compromise is/might be needed but people have to have the information to allow them to assess whether they feel it’s a valid compromise • Proper computer projections should be used Actions From March 06 Meeting To save time in the meeting, the actions from the previous Main Group were displayed, along with a ‘progress’ column. What Who Progress 1.Make sure reports go on LDA website asap after each meeting LDA (&NW) The website is up to date apart from very recent meeting reports. 2. Clarify changes in area in the park with regard to plans (gains & losses) LDA This was done in the March meeting and some figures were included in the report. 3. Clarify World Heritage Site possibility LDA Masterplanners to follow up. 4. Consider weblink for the park, for queries to be referred to LDA with events manager Currently being set up. 5. Talk to Nick Goy if you want information about objections to 125 year lease discussions All Please Ask Nick Goy about this. 6. E-mail any comments to NW on consultation report (in addition to discussions today) All No further comments were received after the meeting. 7. Respond in writing to consultation report comments received NW The response was sent out with the March meeting report. 8. Finalise and circulate consultation report LDA The final report was sent out with the March meeting report. 9. Clarify costs/benefits of plans so people can assess plans in light of Arup economic £ LDA Some figures were included in the March meeting report. Further work on costs etc will be done by the masterplanners over the next few months. 10. Clarify whether student accommodation near station gate is in/out of park LDA The boundary is a little ambiguous but the land is believed to be within the park boundary. 11. Set up next MG as soon as can identify the next useful stage of discussion (especially re: costs) NWA/TEC October was the earliest sensible date for a Main Group meeting. They will need to be more frequent over the next 9 months. 12. Outline how many of the improvements could be done if no housing was built LDA This will be part of the costing work to be done by the masterplanners. 13. Confirm income from caravan site LDA £21,262 The following comments were made in relation to the actions list. • 13 – Is this profit? • Is the drinks license for the park, for the students or for filling up the wrong people? Has it already gone through? • The agenda today was far too ambitious! • No drinks in the park. It took Penge Police 2 years to get rid of drunks on street • Paying for concert is the most obvious way for a civilised evening Crystal Palace Park Events Programme A sheet was displayed re the proposed events programme, with space for comments. It is proposed that the LDA commission or facilitate a series of events within Crystal Palace Park over the next 3 years either in conjunction with external organisations or independently. A list and brief description of the proposed events is given below: 1. November 2006 – Commemorative Fireworks Event As 2006 is the 70th anniversary of the destruction of the original Crystal Palace, the LDA will be holding a commemorative fireworks event to mark the event. Expected attendance: 5000 - 10000 2. Winter 2006–Spring 2007 (November 2006–January 2007) Park Ice Rink The LDA will operate a winter ice rink from November through to January. Expected daily attendance: 150 – 200 3. Spring 2007 (late April/early May) – Business Show (tbc) South London Business have come forward with a proposal for a business show, to be located in the park. Expected attendance: 2000 per day over 2 days. 4. Summer 2007 (May Bank Holiday) - Motor Show Sevenoaks & District Motor Club are proposing to resurrect their annual motor show. The show will feature classic car time trials and a range of static attractions. Expected attendance: 3000 - 5000 5. Summer 2007 (at or around June 10th) – Commemoration of the Opening of the Crystal Palace at the Park The LDA proposes to commission a major event to mark the anniversary of the opening of the Crystal Palace at Crystal Palace Park. Expected attendance: 20000 - 29999 6. Summer 2007 (July – August) – Royal Philharmonic Orchestra (tbc) The RPO proposes to run a concert series over 3-4 consecutive Sundays with the possibility of a site share with a commercial promoter. Expected attendance: 6000 – 8000 per concert 7. Summer 2007 (July – August) – Rock/Pop Concert Series If the RPO and LDA successfully manage to negotiate a site share with a commercial promoter, then a series of rock/pop concerts may take place. Proposed acts are tbc but may include performers such as Blondie. 8. Summer 2007 – Outdoor Cinema (tbc) The intention is run an outdoor cinema over a period of 2-4 weeks. The cinema will show a range of blockbusters, art house film and material from new film makers. Specific opportunities will be given for local film makers to showcase their material. Expected attendance: 1000 – 1500 for major feature films, considerably less for art house, fringe etc. 9. Summer 2007 – Community Festival This 1 day event, accommodating upto 30000 will feature a range of entertainment from live music to dance, drama, comedy and film. Expected attendance: 20000 – 30000 Other Events TBC, including small and community events. The events above are in addition to the regular events the park holds, including cycling and other sports events (e.g. cross country runs). Other concepts are under consideration. This list of proposed events does not include events at the National Sports Centre. Events Programme Comments • Looks like an embryonic ‘theme’ park – 2-a-penny throughout the UK. Not my idea of one of our best-loved local parks. Commemorative occasions (points 1 & 5) welcome (as always!). Community use of park also welcome (item 9). Concerts (classical and pop) have always been popular and fit well with the park. Ice-rink likewise. Business shows et al – No! It is a park. P.S. I am a local resident, 25 years same dwelling, member of: The Foundation, Library Campaign, (ex-supporter of) Crystal Palace Campaign, Upper Norwood Society, Friends of Stockwell Park & the CPCA. Also a member of Friends of the Park! • Good well balanced programme • Why do fireworks have to go bang? What about the wildlife….. • Music, dancing, entertainment and community events. Sounds like fun to me, can’t have that!! • Rock concert = noise pollution = must be addressed. Also, parking and traffic = problem for residents for large events. • A day of quiet (small scale) events in the park Please sign up if you would like to give a presentation at the special Main Group in December: • Brian Spicer – E.T.T.A. • Ray Hall – New Crystal Palace in a restored Crystal Palace Park General Comments An additional graffiti sheet was posted for any other comments about anything… • NW’s suggestion of having another look at the composition of working groups very welcome. • The masterplanners seem very knowledgeable about European parks (in Germany, Italy, France, Spain, etc.). They need to remember the ‘special’ needs (unique to the UK and London in particular) of our parkland – i.e. preservation of what is still there, in terms of Natural Habitat/Environment (Trees, Shrubs, Grass, Water, Hedges, etc.). There is a real danger here of over enthusiasm for park furniture/architecture/lights/noise etc. which will sweep away the bird life, insects, ‘wild’ animals, bats and peacefulness/tranquillity (vital for all South Londoners!). Merely striking a balance between urban and rural may not be sufficient (see events programme!) – the ‘countryside’ (as in 1850s) may slowly recede and disappear – despite good intentions • ETTA support renovation of Heritage Sports Centre as a separate dry facility, with a community table tennis club, run by a local table tennis organisation, and national events in the main arena. We wish to open dialogue with all parties re inside sports centre provision and outdoor tables at gateways and hilltop • English Heritage has had a major impact on the plans discussed here without accountability to all the people and their wishes who live here and attend these meetings. The people do not want a building that is past its sell by date! Can Bromley Council (parks dept) be asked to attend • If, with the Mayor’s support the LDA wants housing on the park, it should totally comply with the Mayor’s directions on social and affordable housing • Housing ‘sustainable’, yes but why housing?? Lets sustain the existing Park • Exercise in fanciful (tho’ loudly ‘Green’!) experimentation • Additional parkland? No! Already there! • Gateways? Not necessary unless it is a simple entrance (plus gatelodge for park wardens – very important people!). Keep it simple, keep it park. Green, sustainability is amply provided by our maker! • Capel Manor – some good theory/intentions. Too much Big Publicity in the local press (SLP/Post/Croydon Advt/Bromley press, etc.) beforehand!! Counting chickens (sorry for the pun) before they’re hatched? Sinister • Dialogue process – ‘business’ as normal! Lets move on! Do we want? Who wants? Done this! Forgotten that! Minority opinion – forget it! Forget the past (and the present) and into the future! Vision is what we need! • Housing – none needed. Basic principle taking up the park which is for everyone. Don’t structure it too much and take it away from open community use. It will cost less to tidy up and leave it wild and free! • No to housing. This should not even be considered. A park is a park – not an object to be filled up here and there, parts sold off this year, next year? Ad infinitum! Keep it green • With all this house building there won’t be any park left with the increased population in London we need more green space • Housing – it is important to explore other forms of funding. Can we not get some of the ‘Olympic Dividend’ to avoid the need to sell off land. What about an Olympic training camp. South Londoners should benefit from the London Olympics • No housing on parkland, get rid* of the awful existing sports centre (the worst designed building from the point of view of use and in most people’s eyes – Ugly), get rid of the useless rusty skip in the pool and make (or bring back) the useful functional concert platforms. Bring back gardeners to our park – no more contract workmen - & wardens who are evident, who live in gatehouses. *Build new more compact sports centre near the station. No tramlink running through parkland – run a bus link down Anerley Hill • Housing never appeared on the original plans at the first consultation in the park. I do not recall being informed of housing plans – how can LDA claim so much support? Who did they talk to? • Why have the public NEVER been given the option for no housing in the park? The triangle gateway was a sop - Tramlink is the Mayor’s first choice, so housing there was never on the cards • The caravan park is a positive amenity – keep that instead of housing • ETTA – a school/club development, after school, alongside 1 o’clock club at Penge Gate would meet PESSCL guidelines and a link into the evening community table tennis club in the old dance studio • Housing would not be ‘sustainable’ if build on todays standards. We do not need cars rolling in and out of park all day • Pool – since funding is a major consideration – surely (as you have to buy plant for a new pool anyway) it has to work out cheaper to buy new plant for the old pool • Please keep the caravan site – it is good for us, and good for visitors • The pro/con housing section needs to be revisited – not enough time • No 5 day a week farm for the children then no Capel Manor Process Concerns Meeting The main meeting ended late (around 4pm). Those who wished to were invited to stay for a session in which they could talk about any concerns re the dialogue process itself. The attended was attended by 18 community members. Agenda • Effectiveness of dialogue process • Fairness of dialogue process • Impartiality • Exclusion from the process Effectiveness of the dialogue process • Concern that all previous consultation and views haven’t been heeded and will be lost o Master planners here to listen o Effect of Olympics on the framework • Concern that the consultation document didn’t allow response to separate components of issues o Dialogue will ensure that future results are statistically robust o Dialogue are aware and will develop future questionnaires with stakeholders • One o’clock club needs to be engaged o Dialogue will address this • Consultation hasn’t been invalidated by changes (e.g. Olympics) • Purpose of this dialogue was to avoid controversial schemes in the park (e.g. multiplex, replacement housing, tramlink, sports centre expansion) • Concern that new housing would be the first of many • Inconsistent messages from LDA re NSC, and other issues demonstrate failure of the process • Concern over LDA – didn’t engage with English heritage re NSC before going to the public • Concern over naming, (initials only) of individuals on the website. Purpose of task groups is to present options to MG. Not to present a list of those they don’t want involved • Previous consultation seemed to indicate opposition to housing • LDA hasn’t presented options of no housing • Dialogue was to consider the consultation results and options, not to further other agendas Removing people from the process meant it was able to move forward • Effectiveness of the process can’t be measured by the number of people you can satisfy. It is about achieving a balance of views • The work commissioned by the LDA has given a strong basis of information of which to base decisions • ‘Going forward’ shouldn’t mean agreeing to all the LDA says • Concern about proportional voting – an individual has 1 vote, but so does someone representing an organisation • Role of facilitator to try to reach a workable consensus on what should happen in the park • Park has been used as a ‘political football’ and is deteriorating. There is frustration over this • Didn’t respect that people came in to do presentations and we used the time for debate • Feels like questions of fairness aren’t addressed. Suggest that those points be heard o Willing to hear new points. • Very difficult to be certain that this dialogue isn’t being used for other agenda • There will be a systematic attempt to contact user groups that haven’t been involved in this process • Don’t feel that all options have been explored (especially in relation to funding) • Why Capel Manor? MG could be selecting contractors • Difficulty with not enough time and being forced to choose to move on - ‘bullying’ with majority view • Question of who those on WG’s are representing • People need to know about decisions in advance • Question whether new parkland is actually being created • CPCA exclusion • Signing the Code of Conduct in order to participate was agreed by the MG • Residents have no input into decisions being made on their behalf • Believe the process is driven by the wrong imperatives i.e. to achieve the LDAs objectives and not stakeholder interests • Representation very important to this process. Concern over WG members representing organisations and taking major decisions • Believe that the park is going to be commercialised Evaluation Q1. Were you able to participate in the discussions today? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 No not at all Yes Comments • Did not talk – don’t like talking in large groups and small groups were cancelled. Don’t feel that large group is a ‘discussion’ • We discussed ‘process’ about tramlink but discussion of whether tramlink is suitable/worth having or whether the rails should go through the park or not was not allowed. Why bring to CP at all? • Mostly the same people voice their opinions • I am not familiar with the issues. I feel that the discussion is led by people who already know each other and have their own agenda • I was approached by the facilitator before I came in and told my child had disturbed people at previous meetings. I kept outside with her. Couldn’t even hear when people spoke off-microphone • However, it is worrying that a few individuals appeared to monopolise the debate on any subject, and to be contemptuous of views expressed by other speakers from the floor. (This is not written from my own standpoint – I did not ‘tangle’ with CPCA – but I wondered about their strength of representation?) Also, a good deal of misinformation seems to be spread by local e-mail – a sadly misused medium. Disinformation is counter-productive • Too much ‘air’ time given to those with personal axes to grind • No time • Not a lot of time – rushed • LDA, Capel Manor, Tramlink, Masterplanners, etc get a platform ‘as of right’ – objections are limited in time – or agenda items are played off against each other • Too much time taken up by unfocussed comment (i.e. off agreed agenda) by the same group of people • My input sport/community • Agenda too packed, rushed agenda and proceedings, not all expression to comment respected • The same old crew banging away as usual! Q2. How do you feel about the plans for the park at this stage? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Not satisfied Very satisfied Comments • Too much development still in forefront of discussions and not enough re restoration of the historic park • Coming on – unhappy that housing issues not resolved yet (this must be a priority and decision made soon) • Very disappointed that the existing sports centre is to be retained and that the new more compact more convenient sports centre will not be built (if at all) until 2014. Very dissatisfied with prospect of housing on parkland. Very dissatisfied with possibility of tramlink going through park. Very dissatisfied with proposal for blanket alcohol license for park • Much more detail on costing etc. would make acceptance/refusal of plans more rational • Everyone’s out to carve it up for profit • Are we having sufficient influence over the LDA/planners? Same things seem to have been decided already e.g. the two housing schemes • Housing has been put on plan without full public discussion. Contentious issues appear to be sidelined • See 3 & 4 below. I am worried that the proposals do not seem to acknowledge the importance of Crystal Palace’s catchment into Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham. The Crystal Palace site was originally rescued by the old London County Council to provide benefits for the old LCC area (now the inner city) • Think they are coming on quite well – but looking forward to seeing something concrete (not concrete, actually) happening • The plans are clearly not yet formed. There is a great deal of confusion and contention which does come through though • Very incomplete • I don’t want any housing built on the park • No funding details, no maintenance plans, no management plans, we want no housing. Park is a Grade I listed park and housing is not part of the criteria for housing – park for people • Don’t want houses, more sports centre buildings, tramlink, etc. Dialogue process was meant to resolve problems (of multiplex) not produce new ones • Not enough information about the housing • Too many issues and problems centring around a complex matter. Fundamental issues being sidestepped Q3. How do you feel about the dialogue/consultation? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Not satisfied Very satisfied Comments • Seems to still be an opportunity for ‘spats’/heated arguments, meaning it (the main group meeting) could be viewed as a waste of time, despite wanting to be updated re park plans • Very happy with new Local Dialogue consultant • It is struggling along, many misconceptions continue to confuse because of the questionnaire was flawed. The wording was confusing – many questions loaded? Too complex for most people • The smaller groups of previous meetings are more productive than the freefor- all for the whole day • Agenda can’t be followed as some people have private grievances which are too lengthy • The lack of a meeting in the summer meant that matters such as Capel Manor’s proposals which could have been clarified or improved at an early stage – have fallen foul of the consultation process which is a pity. Any important matters must be run before the main group in the formative stages, before they become the subject of a planning application • Complete the discussions and get on with the work • The main group is challenging. Politics with a small p takes over (as always!). Dialogue group is essential and incredibly valuable. But it’s not representative and not enough. Many are clearly frustrated • Ongoing, difficult to listen to everyone’s point of view • I feel that people who live in this area should be given precedent. Visitors can go home to their neat neighbourhood. I live in the park houses • Housing was on agenda but was pushed off the agenda to the ‘writing on the wall’ process. This is not satisfactory as it was the main topic for the meeting • Seems biased towards LDA and its plans. Meant to be the stakeholder’s dialogue – not to push through LDAs plans. Alternatives not explored • It would be very good if it worked • Occasionally some issues don’t get enough attention within the dialogue before they become public e.g. license application and Capel Manor • It’s a free-for-all with a loose structure that leads participants down spurious and bad routes. The process is an exclusive one • See 1, not your fault Nigel Q4. Any other comments or feedback • Not enough publicity for this meeting (why not library, etc. posters?) Why not produce a newssheet (A4 folded) for distribution to local shops, community halls, libraries, etc to up-date local residents on proposals for the park • Very happy with choice of masterplanner • The symphony concerts that we used to have in the concert bowl were fun without bars and sale of alcohol. People used to bring their own picnics and wine or beer – and people took their own litter home – the park keepers used to say that there was no litter and no problems after these concerts. I was pleased to learn more about the Capel Manor project. They need to acquire a few houses in the vicinity rather than build student accommodation in the park. We desperately need to bring the farm and animals back into the park – on the island as well (like it used to be) and get rid of the appalling ‘farm’ buildings ‘designed’ by K. Gustafsen. In fact get rid of everything KG was involved with (another hugely expensive waste of rate payers money by Bromley Council). • Plan from Latz very positive and interesting. Will there be anything published for one to see/read at leisure? • More information – less fear. LDA have facilitated this process which Bromley never did. Bring in English Heritage and Bromley Council to be accountable • Breaks – whenever we have a mid morning or lunch break Nigel should tell us clearly what time the next session will begin and Nigel should start the session at that time. Every meeting in the 21/2 years has had breaks that are allowed to extend way beyond the re-start time. Nigel should be back in the room on time (which he very rarely is) and if people are late they miss the start of proceedings. Lunch breaks are always attended by people who either don’t attend any of the main group meetings or, if they do, only stay for ½ day once every 2 or 3 meetings. They just come in for a free lunch, then disappear again. Various relatives of main group members only go in for lunch. Any way of providing lunch for MG attendees only? • It would help if people stated name and official position before speaking. The chairman knows people by first name – not much help to any one else. Name tags would help • There are a small number of attendees, always the same people, who feel their voices aren’t heard, yet their voices are almost all we hear. Please give these people and groups 10-15 minutes each at the next main group to say whatever they like to us, so that we can then make these meetings as productive as they used to be 2 or 3 years ago • Yes, this meeting is facilitated by a ‘non-independent’ person (paid for by LDA) • Various offices and groups are relying too much on e-mail (which enters a means of other e-mails and is in any case exclusive form of communication). Through an accident of history, Crystal Palace Park is entirely within Bromley which limits development control discussions (as in the case of Capel Manor) and prevents the wider sub-regional benefits or implications from being taken into account, in reaching a decision • NW must get (3 initials removed) et al under control – they manipulate the start of each meeting • I think we need to restrict the items on the agenda more clearly. Not have so much on the agenda, or if we do set up specific meetings to deal with key issues in turn i.e. events, Capel Manor, Housing, Process, etc. • Need to put less on the agenda • Too much time wasted by: comfort breaks too long – not being properly respected, people giving epilogues not questions, too much grand standing • It appears that ‘hot potatoes’ are dropped as undesirable topics which the LDA don’t want to listen to. How can we believe in what’s being negotiated when not discussed at main group meetings • Too busy with tramlink laptop display – only got two sausage rolls at lunch time • I would like an audio tape of this meeting. Although I am on the mailing list I did not receive the mail out document. I would like to suggest a longer day, shorter agenda or more meetings • Main group meetings seem to be getting longer and more unruly giving rise to timing issues. There’s a good case for having ‘break outs’ to allow people to participate – they probably need facilitation • Over running of agenda still a problem. Please include our community club/school development in minutes • The ‘authority’ parties are bored and disinterested in the process. The paid parties regard the process as ‘a job’. In other words, the decisions not with those parties, who are dismissive of voices from the community Formal Consultation Period • Consultation Brochure setting out the options to be sent to all residents and businesses in proximity to the route • Brochure will also be available online via the TfL Website • Opportunity to comment by post and online • Freephone telephone number for enquiries (0800 234 6697) • Local meetings with residents – particularly those with affected property if required • Public exhibitions to be held in the area – Ledrington Road and Salvation Army • Tfl.gov.uk/trams / Cteproject@tfl.gov.uk