Going back a little:

Majority approval for outline Masterplan  application  18 December 2008


On Tuesday 9th December 2008, Bromley Development Control Committee considered the London Development Agency Masterplan outline application for Crystal Palace Park. In a provocative attempt to divide anticipated opposition, Bromley held the meeting in the Council Chamber rather than the Great Hall. With the seating capacity of the public gallery insufficient for a meeting of such importance, public attendees were 'diverted' into an overflow room and seating on the floor of the chamber.

After lengthy discussion, the LDA application was approved by a majority (11 to 5).

Prior to this decision, CPCA Chair John Payne made the following objection:

"Madam Chairman, Members and Officers:

From the CPCA Letter of Objection and your officers' report, it is quite clear that the LDA application fails to comply with MOL legislation, Bromley UDP, the Mayor’s London Plan and statutory planning policy. While supporting the principle of improvements to Crystal Palace Park, the CPCA strongly opposes sale of public parkland for private housing.

Bromley’s only Grade II* Registered Park is held in trust for the use and enjoyment of its taxpayers and Park stakeholders. Before approving the disposal of precious public parkland, Bromley should consider the LDA’s financial commitment to this Park.

Despite their substantial financial resources, the LDA have publicly stated "The long-term implementation costs of the Master planning designs for the Park will need to be found from a mix of public and public money. The public contribution will be limited. This means that any large-scale works would need commercial investment".

The LDA has previously said it will fund basic Park improvements by selling areas of parkland for blocks of luxury flats. Will this be the way public parks are funded in the future?

Bromley DCC members had previously expressed strong concerns on the housing proposals where Councillor Adams said "we shouldn’t be selling parkland for housing… it really is a dangerous precedent". Bromley Planning Department records confirm the level of public opposition to housing in the Park, as does the LDA's own stakeholder consultation, the 85% opposition to housing in a newspaper poll, and the 7000 signature petition to the London Mayor.

In an attempt to stifle overwhelming public objection, the LDA retained public relations consultants 'local dialogue' whose cynical remit was given on their website as "to maximise support for the scheme and to minimise opposition."

All four neighbouring Boroughs are opposed to the sale of public parkland for private housing;

Lewisham "is not convinced there are 'very special circumstances' which would justify this notable reduction of MOL and the large number of homes that would be built on this MOL".

Southwark said "The proposal would result in substantial new residential development on MOL and on land adjoining MOL".

Croydon Planning Committee expressed its concerns to Bromley about "…the principle of residential development on MOL, and in particular the Rockhills residential scheme".

Lambeth Council warn "...there is real concern that such a proposal would cause a precedent for other MOL in London".

To allow housing on MOL the LDA must demonstrate 'very special circumstances' which, in the view of the CPCA, they have so far failed to do. Falsely and misleadingly, the LDA claims that publicly accessible parkland will be increased. The Park is defined as that land within its boundaries, the nature and use of which can change at any time. Construction of 8, four and five-storey blocks of luxury flats will be irrecoverable loss of precious public parkland.

Nicholas Pearson Associates were commissioned by Bromley Council to review the LDA’s Environmental Statement. They identify the unsubstantiated statements and highlight 44 issues that require clarification from the LDA before a decision can be made. Pearson Associates warn that if the Environmental Statement does not include the full environmental information required, any planning permission granted runs the risk of being quashed. They quote case law supporting this.

The CPCA urges members of this committee to abandon party politics, use their initiative to respect the concerns of their constituents who oppose housing, refuse this application and insist that the LDA return with a more moderate and sustainable scheme that does not rely upon, as a funding strategy, the sale of protected parkland for commercial exploitation. If large areas of our parks are sold off for housing, future generations may ask who were they that allowed this desecration of our heritage".

Other compelling statements of objection were made by:

Alastair Cameron of the Joseph Paxton Society who said

"If we allow building on the site of the old palace we would be destroying one of the most significant Victorian sites in the country and destroying the valuable archaeology of our heritage."

Steve Sawko made a powerful case on behalf of Ledrington Road residents who were

"…completely against the proposed destruction of Ledrington Road Green, directly behind residents' houses and within the conservation area."

He continued

"...The LDA wants to build accommodation for Capel Manor students there, which would be a completely unwanted and unnecessary building. The people I represent will take this to judicial review if necessary."

CPCA committee member Jon Digby-Rogers, a banker specialising in project financing and well qualified to comment on the LDA venture proposals, said he was

"...astounded by the lack of thought this financial plan has had. The costing estimate of £67 million does not include professional fees or VAT. When everything is added up it will be well in excess of £110 million".

Mr Digby-Rogers warned that

"If permission is given for this to proceed and the LDA walks away if it cannot find the money, what's to stop a private investor buying them out and we get the luxury flats, but none of the other improvements?"

Jason Cunningham of The London Bat Group said

"There are eight types of rare bat species in Crystal Palace Park. The LDA plans to fell 473 trees to make way for new building and land clearance. If these tree are cut down, bats will be forced out of the dark and their natural habitat."

Ken Lewington made objection on behalf of the Crystal Palace Foundation. He was concerned that any proposed museum would not be open for many years, removal of retaining walls and trees and tons of soil might change the configuration of the landscape resulting in increased volumes of surface water ending up in Ledrington Road and that tons of spoil might be used to place round the National Sports Centre, in detriment to the appearance of this listed building.

Ken Lewington calculated from the applicant’s own tree survey, that of the 470 trees proposed for removal, 387 of them cannot be diseased or represent a health and safety risk because each one falls within one of the categories under which a tree should or could be retained. Following exposure of this blatant contradiction, perhaps not only the Environmental Statement but all statistics given within the LDA application should now receive further close scrutiny?

Following the approval by Bromley Development Control Committee of the LDA Park master plan, John Getgood, Councillor for Penge and Cator ward posted the following online statements:

"There was a fair turn out of objectors but nowhere near as many as promised. The overflow rooms were not needed."

Fact: The Public Gallery was completely packed with objectors. The overflow room was needed to accommodate objectors and some members of the public were directed to seating on the floor of the Council Chamber. Whilst not actually present, 7000 objectors were represented by the petition they signed, which was shown to the committee by CPCA Chair John Payne.

"Many of the objections were unfounded or misguided."

Fact: The objections were not unfounded or misguided but coherent and unchallenged and undisputed by members of the DCC, who sought only points of clarification. Councillor McBride (Cray Valley East) said the LDA waving a large cheque in the air was not a case for 'very special circumstances'.

"On balance the plan was approved. Some members voted against - not sure how many. They got a round of applause from the gallery but it was on false pretences. They weren’t intending to vote against the plans but wanted to hide behind a deferral."

Fact: The applause from the gallery following statements by Councillors was not on false pretences but spontaneous recognition of the case made against the application by Councillor David McBride (Cray Valley East) and Tom Papworth (Crystal Palace). Councillor McBride did not hide behind a deferral but voted against the application.

"None of the proposed building is on land currently open to the general users of the Park."

Fact: Councillor Getgood heard objector Tony Barnett, Caravan Club Head of Estates, state that the public visited the Caravan Club site daily and were made most welcome.

"There is no precedent for building on park land here. In any case, in planning law you cannot argue that because a principle was allowed once, it should be allowed again."

Fact: Councillor Getgood is mistaken. Although there can be no precedents in planning law, the claim by objectors to the LDA application concerning the sale of public parkland for residential development, does not involve planning law, which applies only when an application is made. Sale of public parkland for commercial development would establish a precedent.

"The legal agreement between the Council and the LDA ensures that all money raised by the sale of housing will be ring fenced for use in the first phase of improvements."

Fact: All the money raised by the sale of housing will not be ring fenced for use in the first phase of improvements as it will be received by the developers. The legal agreement mis-quoted by Councillor Getgood applies to money raised by sale of land, not houses.

"As the only member of the committee with residents close to the park, I was convinced that the plan gave people in Penge the best hope of a park they can be proud of."

Fact: Whilst this statement is factually correct, Councillor Tom Papworth (Crystal Palace) made strong objection to the LDA masterplan application on behalf of the thousands of his constituents living far closer to the Park than those of Councillor Getgood.

It is to be hoped that Councillor Getgood’s overall perception of the massive LDA application is sounder than his misapprehensions identified.

All four neighbouring boroughs object to housing  on Crystal Palace Park  5 December 2008


It is customary for councils to comment on major planning applications likely to impact on their borough, where the application has been lodged with a neighbouring council.

The four boroughs adjacent to Crystal Palace Park were invited to comment on the LDA Masterplan application for Crystal Palace Park by Chris Evans, Development Control Manager Major Applications Team for Bromley. Lewisham, Southwark and Lambeth delegated authority to council officers to respond to the application, while Croydon referred it to its planning committee.

Lewisham
Joost Van Well, Team Leader South Team of Lewisham Council Planning Service wrote:

“Lewisham Council is so far not convinced that there are the 'very special circumstances' which would justify this notable reduction of MOL, and the large number of homes which would be built on this MOL.”

Southwark
Gary Rice, Head of Development Control at Southwark Council wrote:

“The proposal would result in substantial new residential development on Metropolitan Open Land and land adjoining MOL that has not previously been developed in this way, contrary to Policy 3D.10 of the London Plan.”

Cllr Kim Humphreys wrote separately on behalf of his Southwark College Ward Colleagues, Cllrs Lewis Robinson and Michelle Holford and himself, supporting his officer’s statements in their objections to the LDA Masterplan. College Ward extends to the border of the Park.

Lambeth
Lambeth Gipsy Hill ward councillor, Cllr Andrew Gibson, wrote on behalf of his ward colleagues, Cllrs Suzanne Poole and Graham Pycock:

“While I am open to improvements to the parkland, I am very concerned about the proposal to use land for housing.”

James Ireland of Lambeth’s planning team forwarded Lambeth Council’s observations on 30 June 2008 as follows:

“There is a real concern that such a proposal could cause a precedent for other MOL land in London.”

“The major policy conflict created by the application still lies with the proposed residential development of parts of the park, the majority of which is designated Metropolitan Open Land. The London Development Agency has put together an argument why an exception should be made to this policy at Rockhills Gate (designated MOL) and Sydenham Gate (not within MOL, but within the park boundary). It will be for the Borough of Bromley to determine whether this argument for exception is acceptable. However, there is a real concern that such a proposal could cause a precedent for other MOL land in London.”

Croydon:

It should be considered whether there are measures in place to ensure that situation does not arise whereby the residential development is constructed yet other parts of the scheme are not delivered.

Following the fiasco of the officer’s recommendations being sent to Bromley without the councillors addendum that a number of conditions be added including the inappropriateness of selling parkland for housing, Bromley has now received the following:

“However its [Croydon] Planning Committee conveys its concern about residential development on MOL and considers that there are several points that need to be taken into consideration and addressed by Bromley, as follows –

Deliverability – there are concerns in relation to the absence of an overall funding strategy which could potentially result in the scheme being delivered in a non-comprehensive way, or perhaps certain elements would not be delivered at all. This makes it difficult to consider whether the parts given over to housing development would be a sacrifice worth making. It should be considered whether there are measures in place to ensure that situation does not arise whereby the residential development is constructed yet other parts of the scheme are not delivered.”

All four neighbouring councils have now aligned with the 7,000 who signed the petition against the sale of Crystal Palace Parkland for private housing, with the hundreds who wrote letters of objection to Bromley on this aspect of the Masterplan and with the views of the overwhelming majority at the LDA’s own consultation meetings, and reject such abuse of an historic public park; recognising the precedent that would be established if this application were approved.

D-Day for Crystal Palace Park
  Tuesday 9th December – 7.30pm


Your chance to tell Bromley you don’t want 180 private luxury apartments built on your public Park

On Tuesday 9th December 2008 at 7.30pm, Bromley Development Control Committee will consider the London Development Agency ‘Masterplan’ application. It is as important to be there as it was with the multiplex fiasco.

The London Development Agency has included the sale of parkland to developers in its proposals to improve Crystal Palace Park.

The LDA previously pledged: “it is not the intention to put housing on the Park” but has now reneged and included five-storey blocks of 180 private luxury apartments in its planning application.

If Bromley grants permission for this application, it will set a precedent, threatening all other UK public parks and green open spaces.

Parks must not be treated like our playing fields – sold off piecemeal for development. Parks must be valued for what they are – vital green spaces in our urban environment.

This is Bromley’s only historic Grade II* registered park. It’s Metropolitan Open Land with much of it within a Conservation Area. Surely it deserves better than this. Are other Bromley parks treated this way?

Opposition is clear: a petition signed by 7,000; local opinion polls; the four adjacent boroughs and the LDA’s own consultation showing overwhelming objection to selling public parkland for private housing.

If you oppose the sale of public parkland, please be there.

9th December at 7.30pm
Bromley Civic Centre
Stockwell Close
Kentish Way (behind the Glades)

Conveniently, Stockwell Close has a large and reasonably priced multi-storey car park

The CPCA supports LDA proposals to improve the Park, but the LDA claim that precious parkland needs to be sold off to make those improvements possible is misleading and unsustainable.

The LDA application includes the removal of the camping and caravan site at Rockhills, and its replacement with five-storey high blocks of 140 private luxury apartments. This would be private housing on Metropolitan Open Land and would set a precedent for public open space throughout the UK.

Additionally, the LDA has included six blocks of up to 40 apartments on Crystal Palace Park near the cricket pitch. These would replace the One O'clock club and the Ranger’s Heritage Lottery funded maintenance yard. The LDA will not confirm the cost of removing and relocating the existing facilities, which must be recovered from any money raised from the sale of our Parkland.

The construction of a huge educational establishment, partly on MOL and the Conservation Area off Ledrington Road, has been recently modified by scrapping the accommodation block. This means the existing Lodge hostel will remain, thus adding to the built footprint on the Park.

If the Masterplan proposals were less elaborate and recognised the Grade II* registered Park (the same designation as Buckingham Palace Gardens) as a green lung in a dense urban environment, the projected £67.5 million (excluding consultants fees, VAT, etc.) could be reduced. Illustrating this, the marvellous improvements to the area around Crystal Palace Station, were achieved at the modest cost of £250,000.

Even though the LDA planning application is of 11,000 pages, it does not have a viable business plan.

The blurring of the line between improvements to the National Sports Centre and the Park is divisive, as the 38 acres of Major Developed Site NSC is already under LDA control and separately funded.

Please be there.

Councils united against housing on Crystal Palace  Park  22 September 2008


On 18 September Croydon’s planning committee considered application to Bromley Council by the London Development Agency for Crystal Palace Park. It is usual for boroughs to consider adjoining major development proposals and Southwark, Lambeth and Lewisham raised concerns over the sale of parkland for housing, recognising the precedent this would set for parks in their boroughs.

In just two minutes a Croydon Council officer recommended approval of the 11,000 page, £62.5 million LDA Park Masterplan, the largest ever received by Bromley. Only after protests from the public gallery did the officer reveal that the application included the sale of public parkland for blocks of 180 private luxury flats.

Quoting the CPCA, Cllr Buttinger asked for confirmation that it is “the intention to sell areas of protected public parkland to residential development”, to which the officer presenting the Masterplan proposal said: “Yes”.

CPCA Chairman John Payne, reminded the committee that the main Articles from the Convention of Human Rights are enforceable under national law in the United Kingdom and that it is possible to bring proceedings against a public authority for acting incompatibly with such right should someone have been affected or is at risk of being directly affected by something done by a public authority. This was demonstrated when a local resident made successful application to the European Court of Human Rights, concerning the earlier Crystal Palace Park multiplex application, approved by Bromley Council.

Mr Payne reminded the Council of the blanket opposition to housing in Crystal Palace Park.

Members unanimously objected to proposals for housing but welcomed possible improvements to the Park. Cllr Scott said: “the housing is the only really contentious part of the scheme”. Cllr Filbey said: “Housing is not the solution to fund the Park… Building on Metropolitan Open Land is not the answer. No No”.

Cllr Perry said that he agreed with council officers recommendation that there should be ‘no objection in principle’ but that there was probably a consensus on the Committee against the housing. He said that Croydon’s report to Bromley should reflect this and a paragraph should be added stating that, “it is not appropriate that parkland is being sold for housing”.

Open Space and Green Belt Assurances

Cllr Perry gave assurance that “Green Belt and Metropolitan Open Land is safe in Croydon”.

Cllr Scott said: “the important issue now is to see open space maintained”.

Cllr Khan said: “the MOL is the people’s inheritance”.

The Committee accepted their officer’s recommendation that no objection to the application be raised in principle, with the proviso that a number of conditions be added including the inappropriateness of selling parkland for housing.

Conservation Area? Hung vote for Triangle  development  August 2008


An artist's impression of the proposed development
An artist's impression of the proposed development

On 31st July 2008, Croydon’s Planning Committee was undecided on an application for one of the largest residential development applications made for the Upper Norwood/Crystal Palace Triangle conservation area. Public objectors, jubilant that the application had been refused, were outraged when controversial further voting resulted in a ‘hung’ decision referring the application for future consideration.

Read the full story on our Planning page

Volunteering in Penge
 August 2008


The Metropolitan Police is seeking 10 or more people to help them help the public with their enquiries in Copperfield House, Maple Rd, Penge. Have you got time Monday to Friday to be a Volunteer Front Counter Assistant for the Penge Community Police Office?

Volunteering in Penge

If this interests you, please contact Sara-Jane Flynn on 020 8284 8782 or email Sara-Jane.Flynn@met.police.uk.

You don't need to be on the beat to make your community safer. Whether you're on the phones or supporting your Safer Neighbourhood Team, every Met Volunteer makes a difference.

Sale of Crystal Palace Parkland for private luxury  flats?  24 June 2008


CPCA chairman John Payne serves objection to the Masterplan on Bromley Council
CPCA chairman John Payne serves objection to the Masterplan on Bromley Council

For two years the London Development Agency maintained the deception that there would be no housing on Crystal Palace Park within their ‘regeneration’ proposals. Despite this, the LDA Masterplan recently submitted to Bromley contains proposals for blocks of 180 private luxury flats on the Grade II* registered, Metropolitan Open Land and Conservation Area protected Crystal Palace Park.

The CPCA formal objection to the LDA Masterplan has been served on Bromley Council and copied to the London Mayor and English Heritage.

To access the objection in full, click here (pdf 280kb).

Spring 2008 Newsletter available online
 April 2008


CPCA newsletter Spring 2008

Our Spring 2008 newsletter is an important edition that covers the LDA Master plan application for Crystal Palace Park in great detail.

One of the leading articles 'Proposed ‘rebuild’ of the Crystal Palace' is reproduced below, and the whole newsletter is available now to read online or download as a 2MB pdf file.

Read our Spring 2008 newsletter online in Adobe Acrobat format Spring 2008 Newsletter(2MB)

Proposed ‘rebuild’ of the Crystal Palace
 [From the CPCA Spring 2008 newsletter]


The much-hyped new construction at Crystal Palace Park is not, as claimed, a ‘rebuild’ of the Crystal Palace. It is a vast commercial complex, marketed as a fairy story, but in truth a desecration of public parkland for private profit.

This massive scheme, with its associated infrastructure, would occupy up to 20 acres of Crystal Palace Park hilltop – the area originally earmarked for the abortive multiplex. However, this parody of the Hyde Park Crystal Palace is anything but miniature. At a third the size (although currently quoted as two thirds the size) of the one million square feet Sydenham Crystal Palace, its prime use would be as a 4/5 star hotel, with conference facilities, unspecified leisure/recreation uses and other commercial activities.

Sue Nagle, a former resolute opponent of major built development on the hilltop, but now a leading proponent of the so-called ‘rebuild’, claims in the Norwood Society’s Spring 2008 Review that: “The scheme, estimated at £265 million, will be privately funded” and that: “ Not one penny from the public purse will be necessary!” Ms Nagle modestly claims that the proposed hotel, recreation and leisure complex: “is going to be the most prestigious building in the world”.

Another Crystal Palace replica – Homebase, Catford
Another Crystal Palace replica – Homebase, Catford

As a blatantly commercial venture, one would not expect it to receive benefit from the public purse, but with breathtaking arrogance Ms Nagle calls upon Bromley Council to commit valuable land, they hold in trust for their council tax-payers, to enable this commercial speculation.

Corporate investors would not believe their good fortune should such an outrageous strategy be successful. Some might consider the ‘rebuild’ an audacious attempt to railroad-through commercial development, in a pastiche of Paxton’s Crystal Palace, whilst hijacking public land worth millions of pounds.

Visitors to Ms Nagle’s Church Road exhibition were shown a redundant video that featured the 1851 Hyde Park Palace and not the 1854 Sydenham Palace, and may not have realised there is no proposal to rebuild a replica of Paxton’s original Crystal Palace and that they were being asked to support development of a five star hotel with other recreational and leisure facility. Surprisingly, despite claims that “funding is in place”, the architect is unable to provide an updated DVD due to cost restraint, and no planning application supported by Environmental and Transport Impact assessments has been submitted to Bromley.

Blanket opposition to the multiplex revolved around, not just permanent loss of parkland, but also the damaging effect on the surrounding area and roads of a large one-stop commercial development with an insatiable appetite for a procession of service vehicles and cars.

When Bromley granted planning permission for the multiplex they did so in the awareness that an investment of this scale could not be allowed to fail. Accordingly, the applicant was given carte blanche for possible change of use to ensure the continued viability of the development. The same would be true of the proposed Crystal Palace building with its multi-million pound investment.

If for whatever reason, the operation of the proposed 4/5 star hotel-recreation-leisure complex were to become unviable, conversion of the complex to expensive luxury apartments would be a likely outcome.

Worryingly, Mayor Livingstone, Cllr Stephen Carr, Leader of Bromley Council and Cllr Mike Fisher, Leader of Croydon Council, are quoted as supporting the idea despite the absence of a planning application, Environmental Impact Assessment, Traffic Impact Assessments or basic business plan. Such proposal would be contrary to the Mayor’s London Plan and Bromley’s and Croydon’s UDPs, which maintain that protection of Metropolitan Open Land is paramount.

Some might favour a small structure, commemorating Paxton’s original Palace that would provide access and protection to the Subway and the tree-lined ridge, with possible uses that were not overtly commercial. It would, of course, need to respect the Crystal Palace Acts and be ancillary to MOL uses.

Would future generations thank us for allowing yet more depletion of green open space for further commercial exploitation of a public park? What is really needed to enable ‘regeneration’ of the area is the restoration of this once beautiful park – to become again a landmark in its own right.


[Those who wish to see the whole newsletter, click here]

Objections to LDA application
 22 February 2008


Many people wish to inform Bromley Council that they object to the housing proposals in the LDA’s Masterplan outline planning application for Crystal Palace Park, reference numbers: DC/07/03897/OUT and DC/07/03906/CAC.

The deadline for response to this application is 11th March 2008 according to site notices posted around the Park, however Bromley has agreed to accept late submissions but these might not be included in the Officer’s report to the planning committee members.

The CPCA has produced a standard letter that anyone may use or adapt to incorporate their own comments. Just download the letter, add your own name and address, date, sign and post to:

Bob McQuillan
Acting Chief Planner
London Borough of Bromley
Civic Centre
Stockwell Close, Bromley BR1 3UH

or email to planning@bromley.gov.uk

Cite the reference numbers on all letters or emails. We would be grateful to receive a copy of your objection letter for our reference.

For those who wish to write their own letter we have provided additional grounds for objection, arranged under topics to download or View Here

LDA Planning Application for Park Masterplan
 January 2008


Just 42 Days to consider and object to 30-year £67.5million ‘Masterplan’

If you are a Bromley resident, immediately local to the Park, you should have been notified by Bromley Council of this application. However, many who care about Crystal Palace Park will have no idea of the huge changes planned for the Park by the London Development Agency. These include the construction of at least 180 private luxury housing units on public parkland and the loss of the Caravan Club. Anyone anywhere can object to this planning application.

The LDA's Masterplan application arrives at Bromley Civic Centre Bromley’s statutory time limit for making objection to this application is inconsistent and confusing. Although Bromley officers have extended the statutory 21 days to 42 days, the public notices in the South London Press of 1st February (see these links: Outline and CAC & LBC) give 21 days, while the flimsily attached notices around the Park state 11th March for the Outline application and an illegible date for the Conservation Area Consent and Listed Building Consent applications.

The CPCA is pressing for an extension to the deadline as the £67.5 million ‘Masterplan’ application runs to many thousands of pages and is the largest that Bromley has ever received.

The application, all 5½ feet of it, as it arrived at Bromley Civic Centre - 2nd November 2007

A statutory requirement is that notices are posted adjacent to the area of a planning application. As of 30th January no such notices had been posted around Crystal Palace Park.

There are two methods of viewing the three applications and supporting material; either visit the planning department at Bromley Civic Centre and ask to see the documents, or open the documents online at the LDA’s website www.crystalpalacepark.net home page and click on ‘here’ in the top right green box. This takes you to ‘Planning Applications and Supporting Documentation’ and links to the following application references:

07/03897/OUT
07/03906/CAC
07/03907/LBC
Supporting documentation

NB: It is important to note that the only way the documents can be viewed is by downloading and saving them with different file names to your computer. It is not possible to view them directly online which will be a difficulty for those using public internet services. We have pointed this out to both Bromley and the LDA but no action has been taken.

The Bromley website is much harder to navigate and does not include critical ‘Supporting Documentation’ such as the ‘Business Case, ‘Cost Plan’ and the ‘Management and Maintenance Plan’. On both sites there are a number of files that do not open despite the CPCA bringing this to the attention of Bromley and the LDA.

2 out of 3 notices at the Triangle Gate entrance
The flimsily attached notices around the Park

The CPCA is resolutely opposed to the building of housing on the Park and we would urge that you pay particular attention to the housing proposals for Rockhills and Sydenham Gate. The applications’ illustrations, although ‘outline’ at this stage, give a good indication of size, massing, general design and impact of the housing developments and this is the time to object to the principle of selling parkland for housing or commercial development, although a later ‘full’ application might show amendments.

The LDA are attempting to demonstrate to Bromley ‘very special circumstances’ to allow controversial development on Metropolitan Open Land/Grade II* registered parkland.

To make objection to this or any other aspect of the masterplan, write to:

Bob McQuillan
Acting Chief Planner
Bromley Council
Civic Centre
Stockwell Close
Bromley BR1 3UH

Bromley expect the application to go before a planning committee at the end of September 2008.

If you need further help or advice, please contact the CPCA. Don’t be put off by the statement in bold at the top of each planning application that you can’t object.


See our 2007 archive and 2006 archive pages for earlier news.