Two Community Consultation meetings arranged by ARUP were held on Saturday 1st March 2014 at 11.30 and 13.30 at the Paxton Suite in The Lodge, Crystal Palace Park.
These meetings, though inadequately publicised by the organisers, were well notified by the CPCA and other local organisations, which perhaps contributed to the inauspicious start to the first meeting, when more than 200 people attending at 11.30 were unable to gain admittance, finding the room already packed to capacity, with every seat taken and many more standing and even sitting on the floor.
Predictably, people unable to attend were furious at this fiasco, which was not helped by the sublime arrogance of some stewarding the meeting in telling those that complained at being excluded from the meeting “…don’t worry there is another meeting at 1.30.” at which one angry person said “This is a joke there are more of us outside than inside.”
Those attending the 11.30 meeting, conducted by ARUP Associate Director James Lough as ARUP Main Director Jerome Frost was delayed, were able to ask questions, most of which were heated and heavily critical of the lack of any real information upon which people could make assessment of the Chinese proposals for Crystal Palace Park.
London Assembly Member and Upper Norwood resident Val Shawcross expressed strong concern at Bromley’s behaviour and the lack of transparency in the process, and said we should not forget that the developer is not British and is an overseas private company.
James Lough suffered hostile questioning, and even some heckling, such was the frustration of those attending, and to be fair to Mr Lough, the consensus was that it was not his refusal to answer questions, but his inability to do so due to lack of information.
Following multiple complaints that the picture of the proposed Crystal Palace was a deception and why was this, one local resident received applause when she said “…it’s a slick glossy sales pitch and we don’t buy it, it’s a sham and it’s shameful.“
At the 1.30 meeting, for which some people had waited 2 hours to attend, the situation repeated itself, with again some 200 people excluded from this important meeting, and amongst whom was Melvyn Harrison, Crystal Palace Foundation Chair and acknowledged expert on the history of Crystal Palace.
When questioned on this at the start of the 1.30 meeting, ARUP Director Jerome Frost, who was most courteous throughout, said they had chosen this venue based upon attendances at earlier ‘drop in meetings’ and may have got it wrong, but ARUP would give regard to this in future meetings and make sure everybody was able to attend.
This was quite clearly systemic failing by ARUP, who with their vast experience and resources, were seriously negligent in relying upon returns from ‘drop in’ meetings and not recognising that Saturday meetings on a matter now attracting such escalating public concern, at a venue with virtually unlimited free car-parking, would attract many people.
When asked by CPCA member Mike Warwick if he would take a question on his explanation, Jerome Frost said of course, but as he would like to get on with the meeting “…we will take as many questions as you like at the end of the meeting.”
The meeting, conducted by Jerome Frost with contribution from Marc Hume, whilst generally convivial, attracted interruptions by people seeking information, although beyond repeat reference to the six short-listed architects from which selection will be made to design the proposed ’New Crystal Palace’ (what ever that may be) the strong consensus was that absolutely no new information whatsoever had been provided.
In his presentation, Jerome Frost relied upon wall charts giving statistics to emphasise the extent of ARUP community consultation, but as these statistics were percentages and not actual numbers, low attendance numbers at limited ‘drop in’ meetings and questionnaires with no return address, suggests that community consultation has been minimal.
To bring community consultation into proper perspective, it should be remembered that in support of their Cinema Multiplex proposals for Crystal Palace Park, London and Regional Properties researched the statistic that there were 1.6 Million stakeholders living within thirty minutes drive time of Crystal Palace Park, yet when the CPCA relied upon this in a letter to LDA Managing Director Tony Winterbottom, he scathingly replied that the LDA considered there were 6 Million London stakeholders in Crystal Palace Park.
One person interrupted the meeting with the question what would there be to stop Zhong Rong changing the use of the new building after construction, to which Marc Hume replied that there would have to be a new planning application to Bromley, but the CPCA fears this may not be the case in the future, consequent to changes in the law under “Localisation” and proposed chages in planning legislation exposed in the press under “Nuclear Option”.
At the end of the meeting Jerome Frost said that a presentation on the history of Crystal Palace Park would now follow, and when reminded, that he would first take questions, whilst Administrator Katie Kerr said that as there was not much time left she would take six questions only, three from each side of the room, but people with questions could then go to the other room, where somebody would be available to answer their questions.
At this time there were more than thirty people in the meeting unsuccessfully indicating they wished to take part in discussions, when perhaps ARUP should take note that discussion is commonly accepted as conversation or debate on a particular subject.
Not only was this a breach of undertaking given by Jerome Frost to “…take as many questions as you like at the end of the meeting.” but also clearly duplicitous since questions and answers between individuals in the back room would be heard only by those persons, and not by all of those attending the meeting, via the mobile microphone.
By this unsatisfactory means, Jerome Frost was asked what was the large aerial colour picture on the wall in the second room and in the brochure published by Mr Ni Zhoaxing’s ZHONG RONG INTERNATIONAL (GROUP) LTD to which he replied it was a picture of the proposed new Crystal Palace. On being further asked how many of the six short-listed architects had input into this concept, Jerome Frost replied, with commendable frankness, that none of these architects had any input and it was probably just an artist’s impression.
Jerome Frost also said that the final building would probably be nothing like the picture, and had his frank response been given in the main room during the earlier meeting, one person who said the new Crystal Palace looked lovely, might have thought otherwise.
It is perverse that the organisers scheduled a lecture on the HISTORY of Crystal Palace Park by sculpture expert Christopher Marsden of the Victoria and Albert Museum, which although most interesting and well received, absorbed valuable time for meeting attendees to address the FUTURE of Crystal Palace Park, when this was clearly a diversionary tactic intended to minimise questioning.
That there were any permitted questions at all is mainly due to the complaints of Martin Tempier’s Crystal Palace Park Stakeholder Group and John Payne of the CPCA when also protesting at the absence of posters, leafleting and required notification of meetings.
The brochure titled ‘THE CRYSTAL PALACE’ October 2013 endorsed by the personal signatures of Mr Ni for the Zhong Rong International (Group) Ltd, Boris Johnson as Mayor of London and Stephen Carr as Leader of the London Borough of Bromley, contains advice under the heading HOW CAN I ENGAGE IN THE DISCUSSION?
Ironically, although ‘discussion’ is accepted as conversation or debate on a particular topic, one place where people won’t be able to engage in discussion are ARUP public meetings on the future of Crystal Palace Park, where questions are discouraged.
The Questionnaire available on request at ‘drop in’ and public meetings, although omitting important issues, contained questions requiring the application of time and careful consideration, yet no contact details were provided for those who wished to give the questionnaire further consideration at their convenience.
The only reference to “…consultation with the public…” in the triple signed colour brochure ‘THE CRYSTAL PALACE’ is in reference to multiple community uses of the re-imagined Crystal Palace, which most would agree is somewhat posthumous.
An important potential question to ARUP which was obstructed, is was what is meant in brochure reference to the re-imagined Crystal Palace “…It must be owned and loved by the local community especially young people…” and “It must also be affordable as well as financially sustainable.”
Mike Warwick, CPCA