Crystal Palace Park Public Inquiry

So here we go again. Another public inquiry over proposed developments on Crystal Palace Park. Jerry Green takes a look at some of the issues which will be among the main points of the arguments. The various articles are based on the officer’s report (200 pages of it) to Bromley’s development control committee held last December and the minutes of that meeting as reported to the committee in February this year.
(Readers new to the area or to The Palace magazine are advised to browse the articles in under the heading ‘CP Site’ which outlines the various proposals and also covered the 10th anniversary of the Crystal Palace Campaign. (Note: Plans to build housing at the Norwood gate at the top of Anerley Hill were dropped very early on).

A major public inquiry is to be held over the latest controversial plans for Crystal Palace park.
Hazel Blears, the communities and local government minister, has ‘called in’ the plans which include building housing on various sites on the edge of the park.
The inquiry, which will be held at Bromley civic centre, starts on July 7th at 10 am and is expected to run for at least five weeks. The latest plans have generated the biggest-ever volume of correspondence over any planning application in the borough.
The move follows the decision by Bromley council’s development control committee to give the London Development Agency permission for a wide-ranging variety of schemes in and around the park subject to the prior completion of a legal agreement and any direction by Mayor of London Boris Johnson and Hazel Blears.
These include 48 homes in six blocks on land near the Sydenham gate; a new college building on open land near Ledrington Road to be used by Capel Manor  (a horticultural and animal husbandry training college) and a tree planting scheme on the top site along Crystal palace Parade which picks out the outline of the original Crystal Palace. Two other applications – one for the demolition of the west and Jubilee stands at the stadium, the other for alterations to the main National sports Centre, for which the council also gave permission, have also been ‘called in’.
In a letter to Bromley council the Government Office for London lists “the following matters” which Hazel Blears particularly wishes to be informed about for the purposes of her consideration of the application.
These are the extent to which the proposal is
*consistent with policies to meet the housing requirements of the whole community (including those in need of affordable housing)
*consistent with policies to ensure adequate provision is made for development whilst ensuring effective conservation and enhancement of biodiversity
*consistent with the protection of buildings listed for their special architectural or historical interest and the preservation of conservation areas and the wider environment such as trees and historic parks and gardens
*consistent with policies which meet sport, open space and recreation requirements of the whole community and
* consistent with Government policies which include protection and enhancement of the environment; prudent use of natural resources; sustainable economic development; the promotion of high quality, inclusive design in terms of function and impact which takes the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area; and the delivery of sustainable development through the achievement of social cohesion and inclusion.
Hazel Blears also wants to know if the proposal accords with the relevant provisions of Bromley’s own unitary development plan (adopted July 2006) and with the relevant provisions of the London Plan, the new planning strategy for the capital which covers a wide range of policies including development, living and working in London, enjoying London and climate change..
At its meeting last December the committee gave its permission for part full/part outline applications after hearing a wide-ranging host of objections and comments. Objections included building homes on park land – none of which would be affordable housing; the loss of habitat for bats; the demolition of various buildings including three walls which were part of the original Crystal Palace; the unnecessary felling of trees; the loss of synthetic sports pitches; and the loss of other sporting venues underneath the walkway which currently links the top and lower halves of the park.
Articles on the plans appear in The Palace magazines numbers    and 14.
*A NINTH species of bat – Nathusius’ Pipistrelle – has appeared in the park this year. See ‘Everything you always wanted to know about bats’ part of our main feature which examines some of the issues surrounding the plans. And a contributor to the Virtual Norwood website says great crested grebes are nesting in the park.

Everything you always wanted to know about bats* (*but were always afraid to ask)

• All bats eat insects and are dependent on habitat which provides an abundant supply. Bats use many roosts during a year for different purposes and functions, all of which are present in the park. Trees which have a high potential for roosting are proposed for felling.
• But no detailed survey has been carried out of individual trees to identify their potential to support roosting bats. The survey identified four bat species in the park when there are actually eight. And certain areas of woodland were not even surveyed including the top wildlife site and the proposed college/lodge site adjacent to Ledrington Road. The comments on bats came from local resident Jason Cunningham in his submission to the council and are used at length in the report.
• Three rare species of bat would be affected by increased light in the park. The three species are dependent on different habitats e.g. woodland areas under/around tree canopies (natterers); surface of sheltered water bodies (daubentons) and above woodland canopies and open areas (noctule). The three species will either not tolerate light or are very sensitive to light and would be adversely affected if the relevant habitat were to be lit up
• Tree lines act as ‘green corrridors’ for bats. They join up foraging areas and are important habitats themselves. Bats mainly forage for the two hours after sunset. Leaving lights on for this period has adverse effects on their feeding on insects. The type of lighting likely to be provided will give off little ultraviolet light and will not attract insects but clear an area of flying invertebrates.
• The aim of ‘opening up the park’ will remove natural screens created by trees at the edges of the park, allow artificial light into it and increase light levels – greatly increasing the area that some bat species cannot use. The flats at the Rockhills site and the park maintenance building both involve loss of trees and would be across important bat commuting routes which link the park to other bat habitats nearby.
• The planned greenhouses and park maintenance building – which both include much glazing – and the cafe are close to the important feeding habit of light-intolerant bats around the lake. The residential development and other proposed buildings will emit light. The Jubilee stand, which would be demolished under the proposals, screens the important habitat to the east around the lakes; lit areas with car parking and resulting headlights will affect adjacent woodland; there would be a 24 hour network of lit paths
• Details of lighting should not be dealt with as ‘reserved matters’ in view of the clear intention to use lighting to enhance the landscapes and increase public use of the park.
• Proposals  for tree and scrub habitat removal are based on arboricultural arguments – not ones relating to biodiversity. Dead wood,  ivy, fungi, rot and unhealthy/dying trees are needed for a healthy ecosystem because of the habitat they provide – particularly for insects – and are not valued by the applicant’s arboricultural report. This habitat is vital to protected species in the park.
• (The officers’ report to the committee said surveys carried out for the LDA – considered to be in accordance with Bat Conservation Trust guidelines -  in August 2007 showed a marked decrease in bat activity over the concert bowl when a concert was in progress. Surveys also showed the lake in front of the concert bowl was an important bat feeding area and the bat survey advised the open water here be retained. The filling in of part of the lake is not included in the schedule of proposals and the LDA have agreed not to pursue this at ‘detail;s puersuant’ stage).
• Natural England in its comments says that although bats may occasionally benefit from artificial light by feeding on insects attracted to them, as a group they are more likely to be adversely impacted by lighting.
• “If lighting is badly designed it can delay emergence from roosts in the early parts of the night when the most insects are available, deter the use of traditional foraging areas and fragment dark corridors, effectively reducing habitat connectivity. The design of a sensitive lighting scheme which minimises these impacts is therefore a critical component of the proposals when considering biodiversity. It would be far easier to resolve any issues and, if necessary, reduce the amount of lighting in order to preserve dark corridors than to try and rectify problems which may become apparent after lights have been installed.
• Eight species of bat (not named in the officer’s report) – Common Pipistrelle; Soprano Pipistrelle; Noctule; Leisler’s Bat; Serotine; Daubenton’s Bat; Natterer’s Bat and Whiskered Bat – have been recorded using the site. “This is pretty exceptional in the London context. There are only a few sites with the same number of species and it is unlikely that many (if any) exist with more.
• One species of bat in particular will not tolerate areas that are not completely dark (Natterer’s Bat). If too much badly-designed lighting is erected in the park then this could effectively fragment the nocturnal landscape of the park and cut bats off from key foraging areas  by disrupting essential flight lines with walls of light which they will not cross. The removal of large numbers of trees, especially old cracked ones, raises the potential of disturbing a roost. Bats are very difficult to pinpoint to specific trees and roosts are often transient so removal of trees needs to be approached with great care.
• “Both potential impacts could lead to an offence being committed under The Conservation (Natural Habitats and Regulations) 1994 as bats are protected under European law from killing, injury or disturbance. The legislation is very complex and it is not clear how to deal with the disruption to flight lines as a result of lighting. But there are plenty of precedents for prosecutions being brought as a result of disturbance to roosts”. So bat’s bat then. (Sorry!)

How Green is my Palace

Any permission should be conditional upon a green travel plan to support an overall reduction in private transport use. The residential development will increase demands on local services and together with the glasshouses/butterfly house and retail kiosk will increase traffic on already congested roads and junctions. It is unclear what the retail kiosks/cafes will sell.
Car parking should be curtailed and priced to deter park users and staff who could use public transport from using cars. No right turn should be permitted onto Anerley Hill from the main access.
Greenhouses will be intrusive and detrimental to the listed terraces because of their overbearing size and bear no relation to Paxton’s design for the Palace as it is not a ridge and furrow roof. Purpose of greenhouses and whether or not they will attract visitors is unclear.
Along with the sunken gardens the greenhouses will ruin the wide grassed areas on the terraces..
The Treetop Walkway would invade the privacy of adjacent properties and their gardens and could have an adverse effect on the bird population.
Museum. The glass box design indicated above the museum – which would be in the subway under Crystal Palace Parade -  would not reflect Paxton’s Palace. The museum should remain where it is and not become a park rangers office.
The wildlife area/scrub on the Paxton terrace provided habitats for uncommon birds including chiffchaffs, black caps and whitethroats. Inadequate detail to judge the impact of the water features. If boats were reintroduced to the lake this should only be to the northern part so as not to disturb wildlife including nesting herons.

This Sporting Life

Sport England objected to the loss of the two synthetic football pitches – which the Masterplan made no reference to. Loss of seating capacity could leave London without a venue capable of staging IAAF grand prix events. The removal of the Jubilee and other stands would be wasteful. The demolition of the concrete walkway would cause the loss of the indoor running track, archery, training pool and model car racing track.
No acknowledgment or commemoration in the proposals to past sporting facilities in the park such as FA Cup finals and motor racing events.

The National Health

The proposed Sydenham Villas development would have an impact on local health requirements, said the Bromley NHS primary care trust. The five nearby GP practices in Penge and Anerley were at, or close to, capacity and would have difficulty in absorbing new patients. The PCT sought ‘Section 106′ monies to enhance health services and to provide the necessary financial support until mainstream public sector funding ‘kicks in’.

General Observations

Among a huge array of other objections, comments and observations from local organisations and individuals on the proposals were the following:
Residential development on parkland would be a precedent for development of other parkland and open space.
Housing as enabling development was unacceptable and the London Development Agency claims did not constitute exceptional circumstances. The park was Metropolitan Open Land, a conservation area and a grade 2* registered park.
The Environmental Impact Assessment did not consider the wider impact of the Masterplan on the surrounding area.
(These comments were among several in a pro forma letter submitted by more than 500 people. A report to the committee said it was understood that the letter had been distributed in the local area by the Crystal Palace Community Association).
The CPCA, in its own objections, said the Masterplan failed to link each of its elements into a coherent whole. Many of the elements could readily be excluded without detrimental or adverse impact to the park. The CPCA, which submitted a lengthy letter of objection to all three applications, many of which were contained in the pro forma letter, said the LDA had failed to provide a viable and detailed business plan; and that the total cost of £67.4 million referred to was likley to be much greater due to professionbal fees, VAT, cost overruns, borrowing costs etc. Although CPCA objected to most of the poroposals it did express qualified support for some including the new use of the museum as a park rangers building; the restoration of the subway; the intention to repair terraces; the adventure playground; the return of boating; the dinosaur interpretation centre and cricket ground improvements.
The Crystal Palace Foundation(CPF) said the arboricultural survey recommended 83 trees for removal on the basis of poor condition etc yet the proposals involve the loss of 470 trees. The CPF quote the survey’s statement that: ‘the Carvan Club site provides an outstanding example of good tree management. There are some fine large oaks, limes and beech in this area, but also plentiful new planting including a delightful line of evergreen oak. There are remnants of a path system – probably dating back to Paxton’s period of tenure – in the wooded area alongside Old Cople Lane.’
The CPF also said it was not clear how the ‘tree grid’ planting on the Palace Terrace within the footprint of the Palace would avoid the position of the original columns. “How can tree growth be limited?” they ask.
There would also be an adverse effect on archaeology of reducing ground levels adjacent to Anerley Hill, also of the excavation for the sunken gardens on the terraces. The mist garden proposed for the former aquarium is not appropriate and the CPF would be glad to provide alternative suggestions.
The New Crystal Palace Ltd, which is promoting a scheme for a new building on the site of the original Crystal Palace, said the environment statement was flawed as it hadn’t assessed the possibility of a new Crystal Palace as an alternative – especially as there is a Parliamentary act which confirms a national aspiration for a possible new building in the style of the original.
The Metropolitan Policie’s crime prevention design adviser  said an ‘open park’ would require 24-hour policing and a ‘safer park’ team working out of a prominent police office. Continued provision of fencing/gates around the lakes would be desirable to prevent accidental drowning and vandalism of the prehistoric monsters.
The Advisory Panel for Conservation Areas suggested the Paxton bust could be relocated to the Penge gate.
Anereley Hill residents whose homes back onto Ledrington Road said the loss of green area used by residents for picnics and social gatherings was a particularly important amenity as their homes had very small rear gardens. There would also be overlooking from windows and a proposed roof terrace.
They queried the need for overnight accommodation for students and athletes, arguing there was capacity at hotels in the area for them. The proposal would be detrimental to the business of local hotels and the local economy. The residents also made suggestions about possible sites and buildings which could be used by Capel Manor College instead.
The Caravan Club said the LDA did not have any site in mind for it to relocate to and relocation costs would be substantial. And the area was not an area of open space deficiency.
St John Ambulance, whose premises on Crystal Palace Park Road would go under the scheme, had not been offered alternative facilities in the park.
Other objections and comments include:
Contrasting paving may be a better way of delineating/suggesting the former Palace.
The Masterplan lacked an architectural feature.
Regeneration of other parks in the UK has been possible without housing development on green space.
The LDA’s assertion that the entrance to, and boundary of, the park would be better designed by construction of housing is illogical. Signage and a gate can do this.
No firm proposals put forward for the restoration of the terraces which are on English Heritage’s ‘buildings at risk’ register.
The cafe and Dinosaur Interpretation Centre had no design features which referred to the park’s history.
The One o’Clock club in Crystal Palace Park Road should be retained and improved with pram park and new toilets
Three historic walls which were part of the surviving fabric of the Palace are proposed to be demolished – the Rockhills/Westwood Hill frontage; the southern boundary wall of the Rockhills/Caravan Club site and the remaining part of the Crystal Colonnade (Ledrington Road).
Unacceptable length of construction period.
Vocal, well-organised minorities are trying to block the proposals. Belief that many local residents will support the proposals but may not register this through formal channels.
And finally:
“The submitted documents are very complex, repetitive, unintelligible and contradictory. The outline status of the Masterplan application provides inadequate details to assess the impact of the proposals properly.”

English Heritage have hailed the ‘exemplary’ Masterplan proposals as something which could represent the best and final opportunity to properly secure the park and the listed buildings within it for future generations.
In a letter to Bromley council, English Heritage’s historic buildings and area advisor Malcolm Woods says the proposals represent a unique opportunity to take the surviving elements of Paxton’s outstanding work and integrate them into a refurbished park which would once again take its place as one of the most significant urban parks in the country.
“We recognise that certain elements of the proposals have generated a degree of local controversy but it is our belief that the relatively localised impacts of the most contentious elements, particularly the proposed housing, will not harm the character or appearance of the conservation area in general or the historic park in particular.”

The Victorian Society have also welcomed the principle of the scheme which “intends to clear away the detritus which represents many years of neglect and sporadic attempts to improve what is still a fascinating historic site. The details of the proposal were put forward by the LDA to the Society’s southern building committee which felt that conceptually it succeeded in echoing both the original magnificence of the Crystal Palace park and also offering a sustainable and original plan for its future and restoring its coherence.
But the committee were “particularly concerned” by the proposals for the sunken gardens, as it would appear that for the purposes of symmetry part of the terraces would be dismantled in order to achieve these two progressive drops in level through the retaining walls. A more detailed report into the adverse effects on the 19th century remains would be welcomed.
They were also reserving judgment on various aspects of the new build at Sydenham Gate and Rockhills Gate as both needed to be very sensitive in their design and use of materials.

In granting permission for the proposals the council said they would comply with objective four of the recreation, tourism and leisure and tourism chapter of the UDP which is to ‘maintain and enhance the role of Crystal palace park as a principal strategic park for south-east London and to recognise its value as open parkland and as an important cultural, recreational and sporting asset.”
The minutes of the meeting, as reported to the development control committee at its next meeting on February 10th, state: “The Masterplan will be a unique opportunity to refurbish and improve the landscape of Crystal Palace park which will be of benefit to south London. The council had particular regard to the positive comments of English Heritage, and the Mayor of London, and the support from the local community, in this respect.”
The residential flats proposed at the Caravan Club site would constitute inappropriate development on MOL as set out in policy G2 of the UDP. But it was considered very special circumstances had been demonstrated by the LDA which clearly outweighed the harm ‘by reason of inappropriateness or any other harm’. Any harm these flats caused to the visual amenities of the registered park; openness of MOL and the character and appearance of the conservation area would be justified by the very special circumstances of the Masterplan proposals.
The proposals would result in the loss of trees to facilitate the Masterplan proposals but it was considered the proposed additional landscaping including new tree planting would more than outweigh any loss of visual amenity or nature conservation interest.
It was considered the survey material in respect of nature conservation issues and the presence of protected species in the park was adequate. The effect of lighting on the behaviour of bats was also taken into account and the view was taken that a planning condition requiring submission of a lighting strategy and schemes of lighting for each part or zone of the park would enable careful consideration of the issue at the ‘details pursuant’ stage to mitigate effects on nature conservation interests.
The college building adjacent to Ledrington Road would have glazed windows with screening of any roof garden.
The lack of affordable housing proposed by the LDA as an exception to adopted planning policies on the justification that all the funds generated for housing would be used for improving the park. It was considered the Masterplan was a unique proposal where a policy exception to H2 of the UDP could be justified without it becoming a precedent for other development generally.
The proposals and the section 106 agreement including replacement permanent  accommodation for the One o’Clock club and temporary accommodation if needed complied with policy C1 of the UDP.
“The committee considered the conditions recommended by the chief planner were appropriate to control the details, implementation, and ongoing impacts of the development and mitigate its various effects on the area and the local community.”
The report to the committee meeting in December cautioned: “As this is a complex and wide-ranging application it is unavoidable that (like the applicant’s material) this report is lengthy and somewhat repetitive. This is necessary to maintain cohesion within each section of the report, and of course the four reports on this agenda cover similar topics and overlap to some extent.

Part of the public inquiry could be held in the area following complaints by community groups and residents.

At the pre-inquiry meeting on Tuesday 5th May, Alan Novitzky, the inspector who will conduct the inquiry, said he would look at the possibility of holding some of the inquiry’s sessions of particular interest at one local venue in the Crystal Palace area. “For the time being, leave it with me,” he told the meeting in Bromley council’s chamber at the civic centre.
Among those who complained about the inquiry being held in Bromley were objectors and supporters alike.
Local campaigner Richard Francis of Westwood Road, Thornton Heath said there were plenty of venues in the Crystal Palace area which had been used before and should be tried again. Crystal Palace Foundation trustee Ken Lewington said the Unitary Development Plan inquiry had been held locally and so should this one. Ray Sacks of the Crystal Palace Campaign, which supports the scheme, echoed their comments. The UDP inquiry had been held in the Salvation Army hall in Westow Street, he recalled.
Steve Sawko of the Friends of Ledrington Green, said the bulk of the consultation exercise over the plans was held in close proximity to the park.
Barrister Tim Comyn, for Bromley council, said public inquiries were usually held in council buildings. “This council chamber is more than appropriate and suitable for this inquiry . It meets all the health and safety and disabled access requirements. And the civic centre is very well served by public transport from Crystal Palace and elsewhere. We can also offer accommodation to store papers overnight”.
An alternative venue could cost around £5,000, he added. “That may not seem a large amount p of money in terms of a London council but it’s an expense we don’t need at the present time if it can be avoided.”
John Payne, chairman of Crystal Palace Community Association, said the Salvation Army had confirmed that its hall was available to use during the time the inquiry was on at a cost of £250 a day – a small price to pay for ‘total public inclusivity’.
Despite much criticism from various groups that they did not have time to prepare statements of their case – which need to be submitted by June 9, four weeks before the inquiry starts – Mr Novitzky refused requests to defer the inquiry to September.
The inquiry into the plans – which includes housing and a college building on different edges of the park – starts on July 7 at 10 am.and is expected to run for five weeks.
After the hearing a Salvation Army spokeswoman said that if anyone did ask about booking the hall they would just deal directly with the people asking them.
*CPCA CHAIRMAN John Payne was slapped down by inquiry inspector Alan Novitzky during one exchange.
Mr Payne complained about a five-week delay in a response from Bromley council. Mr Novitzky, responding, said that by the time the inquiry was open he would be fully aware of the information.
Mr Payne: “That’s too late for us.”
Mr Novitzky: “You’re being extremely unhelpful.”
But Mr Novitzky agreed to look into the complaint from Mr Payne – and a separate complaint from Philip Goddard of the Norwood Society.
Mr Goddard said the Society had received a letter from Bromley council saying the application would be called in and that they would receive further information. “That was the last letter we had. I’m just wondering why one of the principal amenity societies in the area is being comprehensively ignored in this way.”
Mr Novitzky promised both he would make enquiries.

Tags: Crystal Palace, Public Inquiry, Rebuild Crystal Palace