Appeal Lords say no
Three Lords of Appeal found against the CPCA at hearing on Tuesday 23rd April 2013 rejecting submission by Robert McCracken QC that the LDA Masterplan application should not have been outline application and that proposal under it for sale of land to raise money disregarded the importance of Habitats Directive Regulations concerning bats.
CPCA Chair John Payne said “Whilst naturally disappointed we are greatly encouraged by the messages of support from all quarters and it is as though we had won the challenge to the Masterplan not lost it. It is gratifying that all the efforts and costs in bringing this matter into the courts have been justified by the resulting interest and attention.”
Norwood Society Chair Richard Lines said “It’s disappointing that the application failed, but as an objector to the Masterplan the Society will continue to take close interest over the future of Crystal Palace Park.“
Donald Mitchell, London Chair, Campaign for the Protection of Rural England said “Whilst we recognise the need to improve Crystal Palace Park, we are very concerned where the legal protection on a Grade II* Listed, Municipal Open Space and Conservation Area comes under threat. These sites are protected for the benefit of local communities, and more widely, noting the considerable environmental and heritage services they provide, other parks, such as Dulwich and Battersea, have been regenerated without the down-scaling of the green space. We ask Bromley Council to ensure that approval of the Masterplan does not result in further incursion onto this important asset for London.“
Kate Ashbrook, General Secretary of the Open Spaces Society said “We are deeply disappointed that this important appeal has been rejected. Crystal Palace Park is of national importance and it would be tragic if it was to be exploited for commercial gain.”
Darren Johnson, London Assembly Green Member said “I fear the Courts decision will set a precedent that will encourage inappropriate development on all public parks and green open spaces.”
John Payne further said “It is encouraging that the recent GLA/Bromley 10-point plan for Crystal Palace Park includes some features the CPCA suggested six years ago, and does not include building of luxury flats.”
Addendum: Following the decision of the Appeal Lords, CPC Chair Ray Sacks sent out an email bulletin with his comments which Mike Warwick has responded to on behalf of the CPCA.
– Ray Sacks’ email –
From: Crystal Palace Campaign
<crystal@crystalpalacecampaign.org>
Date: 23 April 2013 19:26:28 BST
To: Undisclosed-recipients: <>;
Subject: Appeal Court Judgement
Crystal Palace Campaign – important Bulletin 23rd April 2013Master Plan Challenge by the CPCA rejected:
In the Court of Appeal today (Tuesday 23rd April 2013), the CPCA put their challenge to the Master Plan in front of Lord Justice Laws (chief), Lord Justice Lewison and Lord Justice Mccombe. The two remaining grounds on which the judicial review was permitted were rejected by the court (all three judges concurred) and the legality of the Secretary of State’s action in signing off the Master Plan was upheld. The court also refused a further appeal to that court. The next recourse for the appellants could, in theory, be the Supreme Court. The Master Plan, therefore, stands and could be utilised immediately if Bromley Council is so minded.
Acting for the CPCA were Robert McCracken QC with Annabel Graham Paul and opposing were Rupert Warren QC and David Elvin QC for the Mayor and The Secretary of State.
More… Court 75 at Her Majesty’s Royal Courts of Justice in the Strand (London – outside was a beautiful sunny day, the first we’ve had for ages…) was the scene for what hopefully might be the demise of the Master Plan challenge mounted by the CPCA. Their costs were capped at £2500 but hereafter this may not be the case. I counted 3-judges, 4-barristers, 6 supporting law staff and about 21 others in the court; total 34 which just about filled the courtroom. How much money and time has been wasted on these and other proceedings? The court ran from 1030 to about 1430. At this point the judges took a short break and then Lord Justice Laws read their findings which indicated their dismissal of both claims.
It was very pleasing that firstly the judgement was in favour of the Master Plan and that secondly we knew the result right away – there’s nothing like uncertainty to put off potential funders of the huge regeneration tasks to be undertaken. The community through the Community Stakeholders Group, Friends of the Park, Friends of the Subway, Crystal Palace Campaign, Norwood Society, Sydenham Society, Dulwich Society and many other groups (sorry if I’ve missed you off the list) should be much encouraged by this judgement. On a small scale, funding is in place for the subway work on the Southwark side of the road – the planning permission with Southwark Council is pending.
Several other such scale projects have been undertaken – museum greenery clearance and planting and sphinx restoration. Hopefully movement can now seriously go forward with the other potential large tranches of funding available from the GLA and other sources.
One important point, not understood by the protesters, is that the Master Plan acts as a significant protection from predatory developers since it defines the changes which are allowed.
For a change – a nice step forward for the park!
Regards,
RayRay Sacks
Chair
Crystal Palace Campaign
http://www.crystalpalacecampaign.org
– Mike Warwick’s response –
In an email to “undisclosed recipients”, Crystal Palace Campaign Chair Ray Sacks makes reference, amongst other things, to the hearing in the Court of Appeal last Tuesday 23rd April 2013 where Crystal Palace Community Association challenge to decision by the Secretary of State to approve the LDA Crystal Palace Park Masterplan was refused.
As the Crystal Palace Campaign has no membership, these communications go to email addresses, often whether wanted or not, but at least Mr Sacks signs his own statements, not hiding behind a pseudonym, and is good at counting, but most unfortunately, Mr Sack’s accuracy ends there, as the three Appeal Lords did not give Judgement “…in favour of the Master Plan…” as claimed by him, but refused the CPCA application.
Ray Sacks accurately details those present at the hearing and conjectures on “How much money has been wasted on these proceedings? but conveniently forgets that the Crystal Palace Campaign itself incurred considerable costs in unsuccessful application for Judicial Review of proposals for construction of a Multiplex in Crystal Palace Park.
At about this time, The Crystal Palace Campaign (in effect a self appointed ‘Steering Group’ of about a dozen people) of which I was a member and later Treasurer, established CORE PRINCIPALS, amongst which were:
2) Any proposal for Crystal Palace Park must respect the parkland location, the history of the site and the residential surroundings.4) The community must have full consultative and participatory role in any proposal for the future of its park.
Quite how Mr Sacks reconciles this with his support for a Masterplan including sale of parkland for construction of luxury apartments and his pernicious and continuing attempts to exclude the CPCA from participation in the stakeholder process is unclear, as is the foundation for his “…important point, not understood by the protesters…that the Master Plan acts as a significant protection from predatory developers since it defines the changes which are allowed.” Had CPCA barristers Robert McCracken QC and Annabel Graham-Paul had the benefit of his scintillating perception it could have changed the outcome of the legal challenge and the CPCA thanks Ray Sacks for this riveting enlightenment.
A further demonstration of Ray Sack’s flawed perception of community support for the Masterplan is his inclusion of the Norwood Society in his advice that the community “…should be much encouraged by this judgement, as the Norwood Society is a listed objector to the LDA Masterplan which it made quite clear in a powerful submission at the Local Public Inquiry, but in mitigation, perhaps Ray Sacks has become confused after listening to Norwood Society Vice President Peter Austin.
Mike Warwick