Housing is to be included in the regeneration of Crystal Palace Park - a project which it has now emerged will take a massive 15 to 20 years to complete.
However, the possibility of a major development, possibly a glass pod or a new Crystal Palace on the 200-acre park's top site appears to have been dropped. Trees will be planted there instead.
The August edition of Park News - sent out to 40,000 residents - revealed the LDA's plans for the park. The masterplan is due to be submitted to Bromley Council this autumn.
Despite widespread opposition, the controversial housing option, which could potentially raise £12million of the estimated £67.2million needed for the redevelopment, will be included. The LDA said this would be a "last resort", occurring only if alternative funding sources were not found.
The two-acre housing plan focuses on Rockhills, home to the Caravan Club, and at Sydenham Gate, which houses the One
O'Clock Club, ambulance station and park rangers yard.
The LDA said this would return acres of land to the park as only one of the Caravan Club's private six acres would be used for housing. The organisation has estimated 176 flats could be built on this land and just under an acre used at Sydenham Gate.
John Payne, from the Crystal Palace Community Association, called the housing option "very disappointing" but said it was "encouraging" it was a last resort.
He added: "The LDA is making extraordinary heavy weather out of the regeneration and redesign of the park. They've supposedly listened to ideas from the community but runaway and come up with what they want. I don't think anything will even be done before the 2012 Olympics."
Nikki Nichol from the Caravan Club, which has been in the park since 1951, said visitors to the popular site contributed about £2million to the local economy and that they are in discussions with the Greater London Authority regarding the lease.
Vivien Tutt, manager of the One O'Clock Club, said they were reluctant to move from their present location, although she welcomed the prospect of a new building.
Joseph Mullen, from Upper Norwood, has written to Olympics minister Tessa Jowell MP, London Mayor Ken Livingstone, Prime Minister Gordon Brown and even the Queen.
An LDA spokesman said an extensive £3.5million consultation with the community had been carried out since 2004 which has helped to produce the £1.5million masterplan.
Sue Noble, chair of the Triangle Traders, said the consultation "completely ignored" people's views about rebuilding Crystal Palace or the popular option of a major development on the top site.
She labelled the LDA's plans for a grid of trees at the site of the palace "very clever" as few people would oppose their planting.
She added: "If they rebuilt the palace or had a similar structure then it would be a great focus for south London. The minute it was built, Crystal Palace would be a national focus again. The traders are gobsmacked and they can't believe it."
The LDA spokesman said there were never any firm plans for any large structure to be built on the former Palace site. Instead, he said, it is now proposed for a small museum to be built at the old subway station which would include a roof terrace.
For more on the Crystal Palace Park plans click here
7:23am Wednesday 8th August 2007
Print 
Email this 
CommentPosted by: Vincenzo, Crystal Palace on 11:51pm Thu 9 Aug 07
It's totally mad. We actually have the chance now to build a magnificant new Crystal Palace. Somewhere wonderful to go in the evenings with the other half; maybe see a Lily Allen or Kasabian concert; a ballet or a show or go in the day with the children to visit their attractions; the climbing wall, the museum of sport or the edwardian funfair etc. When they are grown up they can go with their freinds rather than travel to Croydon and later still they may benefit from the 1000 local jobs that the proposal will provide. On top of all this it will provide funding for the park! We don't need to sell parkland for housing and it has loads of private funding. Sounds wholly sensible to me and I will deffinately be there at the opening night!
For more information on the scheme
go to:
'thecrystalpalacesit
e'
It's totally mad. We actually have the chance now to build a magnificant new Crystal Palace. Somewhere wonderful to go in the evenings with the other half; maybe see a Lily Allen or Kasabian concert; a ballet or a show or go in the day with the children to visit their attractions; the climbing wall, the museum of sport or the edwardian funfair etc. When they are grown up they can go with their freinds rather than travel to Croydon and later still they may benefit from the 1000 local jobs that the proposal will provide. On top of all this it will provide funding for the park! We don't need to sell parkland for housing and it has loads of private funding. Sounds wholly sensible to me and I will deffinately be there at the opening night!
For more information on the scheme
go to:
'thecrystalpalacesit
e'
Posted by: crystalgazer, Crystal Palace on 5:17pm Fri 10 Aug 07
The LDA plans for Crystal Palace park are persuasive and look good. We all welcome plans to improve our park but not at the cost of its piece meal destruction. The housing plans for the park have been ill thought and ill judged. They could set a precedent for grabbing land in other urban parks if the Crystal Palace proposals are given the go-ahead. If housing has to be built then why not take the opportunity to build eco-housing such as in Sutton. This would not only be the environmentally friendly and sensible solution but it may in itself also become an attraction. Importantly, key elements have not been included in the plan such as the proposed tram extension which will need separate planning permission. The so-called energy tower at around 250ft will also require separate planning permission. I wonder just how many of us realise that if the tower burns biomass as a fuel polluting emissions will be released in a smokeless zone - not a benefit to the community or to the environment. However, I am fearful that the LDA will simply ride rough shod over local residents' views and impose their own preferred solution.
The LDA plans for Crystal Palace park are persuasive and look good. We all welcome plans to improve our park but not at the cost of its piece meal destruction. The housing plans for the park have been ill thought and ill judged. They could set a precedent for grabbing land in other urban parks if the Crystal Palace proposals are given the go-ahead. If housing has to be built then why not take the opportunity to build eco-housing such as in Sutton. This would not only be the environmentally friendly and sensible solution but it may in itself also become an attraction. Importantly, key elements have not been included in the plan such as the proposed tram extension which will need separate planning permission. The so-called energy tower at around 250ft will also require separate planning permission. I wonder just how many of us realise that if the tower burns biomass as a fuel polluting emissions will be released in a smokeless zone - not a benefit to the community or to the environment. However, I am fearful that the LDA will simply ride rough shod over local residents' views and impose their own preferred solution.
Posted by: John Payne, Crystal Palace on 12:23pm Sat 11 Aug 07
Although the Crystal Palace Community Association welcome the Park's regeneration and the LDA's comment that funding through housing would be a "last resort" we believe that there should be an absolute presumption against the building of housing on supposedly highly protected Grade II* registered, Metropolitan Open Land parkland.
We have similar concerns over the extension of the tram through the Park, which is not illustrated in the LDA's 'masterplan'. The tram will require 3 platforms on the hilltop, plus associated infrastructure and at least two tracks measuring some 13 metres in width, occupying Parkland to the equivalent of 25 tennis courts or more. Latz + Partners , the LDA's 'masterplanners' are claiming that they wish to "reconnect the park with the street" on Anerley Hill, however it is hard to see how this can be achieved with 12 trams operating per hour on this area of the Park. If you are in any doubt of the effect of the tram on parkland then visit Croydon's Lloyd Park, Shirley Hills and refer to the CPCA photos on our website - www.cpca.org.uk.
Clearly the movement of trams through the Park has also affected the designs for the proposed 'Piazza' and public amenity space at the Norwood Gate corner of the Park. This was originally discussed and agreed at public consultation meetings, however illustrations of the agreed design do not feature in the masterplanners publicity. Also not obvious is the intention to double the size of the existing bus terminus on the hilltop.
There is already considerable built development in the Park. How long before we have a plaque on the ground stating 'Here used to be Crystal Palace Park'?
John Payne
Chair, CPCA
Although the Crystal Palace Community Association welcome the Park's regeneration and the LDA's comment that funding through housing would be a "last resort" we believe that there should be an absolute presumption against the building of housing on supposedly highly protected Grade II* registered, Metropolitan Open Land parkland.
We have similar concerns over the extension of the tram through the Park, which is not illustrated in the LDA's 'masterplan'. The tram will require 3 platforms on the hilltop, plus associated infrastructure and at least two tracks measuring some 13 metres in width, occupying Parkland to the equivalent of 25 tennis courts or more. Latz + Partners , the LDA's 'masterplanners' are claiming that they wish to "reconnect the park with the street" on Anerley Hill, however it is hard to see how this can be achieved with 12 trams operating per hour on this area of the Park. If you are in any doubt of the effect of the tram on parkland then visit Croydon's Lloyd Park, Shirley Hills and refer to the CPCA photos on our website - www.cpca.org.uk.
Clearly the movement of trams through the Park has also affected the designs for the proposed 'Piazza' and public amenity space at the Norwood Gate corner of the Park. This was originally discussed and agreed at public consultation meetings, however illustrations of the agreed design do not feature in the masterplanners publicity. Also not obvious is the intention to double the size of the existing bus terminus on the hilltop.
There is already considerable built development in the Park. How long before we have a plaque on the ground stating 'Here used to be Crystal Palace Park'?
John Payne
Chair, CPCA
Posted by: Monica Clarke, Crystal Palace Park Road on 5:44pm Sat 11 Aug 07
Most residents living around the periphery of Crystal Palace Park welcome
Most of the LDA’s plans for the improvement of our park. However, we are strongly
Against the housing and tram plans for our park.
It is clear from the consultation process that the housing plan has been rejected by large sections of our community and environmentalists. So why is it still on the Master plans application? I feel that we cannot fund parks in the long-term by selling off parts of our park.
During the conversion of my property in 1978/79, from the top of Crystal Palace Park Road to Thicket Road our garden were half and land given back to the park. It was during the Mayor's leadership as leader of the GLC and some decades later the same leader want to sell off the land to developers. If this inappropriate plan goes a head, then our house will be asking the LDA for our garden back.
Living on the periphery of the park we will be the ones living on site, and therefore
Will be affected the most. We have already had experience of this when Bromley renovated the dinosaur’s area. We lived in the dirt for two years.
I believe that the LDA has a hidden agenda and want to bully us into something we are against, and that can’t be democratic when the majority says NO. I don’t trust them.
Monica Clarke( Resident )
Most residents living around the periphery of Crystal Palace Park welcome
Most of the LDA’s plans for the improvement of our park. However, we are strongly
Against the housing and tram plans for our park.
It is clear from the consultation process that the housing plan has been rejected by large sections of our community and environmentalists. So why is it still on the Master plans application? I feel that we cannot fund parks in the long-term by selling off parts of our park.
During the conversion of my property in 1978/79, from the top of Crystal Palace Park Road to Thicket Road our garden were half and land given back to the park. It was during the Mayor's leadership as leader of the GLC and some decades later the same leader want to sell off the land to developers. If this inappropriate plan goes a head, then our house will be asking the LDA for our garden back.
Living on the periphery of the park we will be the ones living on site, and therefore
Will be affected the most. We have already had experience of this when Bromley renovated the dinosaur’s area. We lived in the dirt for two years.
I believe that the LDA has a hidden agenda and want to bully us into something we are against, and that can’t be democratic when the majority says NO. I don’t trust them.
Monica Clarke( Resident )
Posted by: jonathon, upper norwood on 10:35pm Sat 11 Aug 07
If you were told to carry out extensive consultation on what should go into Crystal Palace Park I suggest there are two things you would not do.You would not suggest selling part of the park off for housing and you would not ignore the views of the thousands of local people who have dreamed of seeing the Crystal Palace rebuilt. It seems the LDA has managed to do both.
Their decision to exclude the option of building a new Crystal Palace from their consultation is all the more surprising when we learn that there is a popular scheme by People and Places International to do just that.
Apart from being the obvious choice for a park named after it, this grand building would be as exciting in the 21st century as it was in victorian times. Just the name 'The Crystal Palace' would attract top entertainers from around the world. I think it would be a focus for South London, regenerating the area on an unprecedented scale providing, as I understand it, over a thousand jobs and run by a charitable trust that would provide ongoing funding for the park. This would obviously not be a one-off payment as from selling parkland for housing, it would be ongoing funding. If that did not make them take a look, the fact that it has a huge amount of private funding should have required them to consider it.
Although the content is not yet very defined, I am excited by some of the possibilities. I like the idea of a prestigious restaurant at the top of the central nave. I also like the proposal for a museum of sport. It would b e so fitting to have it in Crystal Palace, the birth place of so many sports. There could be exhibitions, dances, concerts, films, ballets and shows; There could be an Edwardian funfair for the kiddies. If the Palace was rebuilt everything would be possible.
The LDA say they have consulted extensively and this is certainly true but itf they have not offered the option of a new Crystal Palace in that consultation how can they claim that their masterplan is the result of a democratic process. Those of us who would have preffered this option have been completely dissenfranchised because we have not yet been counted. In spite of this exclusion, Sue Nagel tells us that almost every trader in the area wants the new Palace and in the facilitation process's own consultation report (to be found on the internet) contains phrases like 'Although no question was asked about this, many people expressed unprompted views about the possibility of rebuilding the Crystal Palace' and 'the public attraction option still gained agreement from the majority' These comments showed an obvious desire for the new Crystal Palace and left the LDA with a dilemma.
They must leave the top site clear for the fun fair etc. but people were saying very clearly that they wanted a Crystal Palace. The Master planners came up with the solution; a Crystal Palace made of trees! Yeah really! I am sure that that was what people meant.
In 1868 on Steilers map of England, Crystal Palace was highlighted by a one inch insert. Kings and queens, Tzars and Tzarinas from accross the globe visitged the Crystal Palace. It was an amazing building; the first modern building; the first expo.
We have in our hands the heritage and the brand name of this phenomena and it seems that this historic site will be reduced to a tree lined home for the funfair when it comes to town! If anyone else is as sad as I am at the prospect, please take a look at a short video at 'thecrystalpalacesit
e.com' and let the Guardian know how you feel.
If you were told to carry out extensive consultation on what should go into Crystal Palace Park I suggest there are two things you would not do.You would not suggest selling part of the park off for housing and you would not ignore the views of the thousands of local people who have dreamed of seeing the Crystal Palace rebuilt. It seems the LDA has managed to do both.
Their decision to exclude the option of building a new Crystal Palace from their consultation is all the more surprising when we learn that there is a popular scheme by People and Places International to do just that.
Apart from being the obvious choice for a park named after it, this grand building would be as exciting in the 21st century as it was in victorian times. Just the name 'The Crystal Palace' would attract top entertainers from around the world. I think it would be a focus for South London, regenerating the area on an unprecedented scale providing, as I understand it, over a thousand jobs and run by a charitable trust that would provide ongoing funding for the park. This would obviously not be a one-off payment as from selling parkland for housing, it would be ongoing funding. If that did not make them take a look, the fact that it has a huge amount of private funding should have required them to consider it.
Although the content is not yet very defined, I am excited by some of the possibilities. I like the idea of a prestigious restaurant at the top of the central nave. I also like the proposal for a museum of sport. It would b e so fitting to have it in Crystal Palace, the birth place of so many sports. There could be exhibitions, dances, concerts, films, ballets and shows; There could be an Edwardian funfair for the kiddies. If the Palace was rebuilt everything would be possible.
The LDA say they have consulted extensively and this is certainly true but itf they have not offered the option of a new Crystal Palace in that consultation how can they claim that their masterplan is the result of a democratic process. Those of us who would have preffered this option have been completely dissenfranchised because we have not yet been counted. In spite of this exclusion, Sue Nagel tells us that almost every trader in the area wants the new Palace and in the facilitation process's own consultation report (to be found on the internet) contains phrases like 'Although no question was asked about this, many people expressed unprompted views about the possibility of rebuilding the Crystal Palace' and 'the public attraction option still gained agreement from the majority' These comments showed an obvious desire for the new Crystal Palace and left the LDA with a dilemma.
They must leave the top site clear for the fun fair etc. but people were saying very clearly that they wanted a Crystal Palace. The Master planners came up with the solution; a Crystal Palace made of trees! Yeah really! I am sure that that was what people meant.
In 1868 on Steilers map of England, Crystal Palace was highlighted by a one inch insert. Kings and queens, Tzars and Tzarinas from accross the globe visitged the Crystal Palace. It was an amazing building; the first modern building; the first expo.
We have in our hands the heritage and the brand name of this phenomena and it seems that this historic site will be reduced to a tree lined home for the funfair when it comes to town! If anyone else is as sad as I am at the prospect, please take a look at a short video at 'thecrystalpalacesit
e.com' and let the Guardian know how you feel.
Posted by: richard francis, thornton heath on 10:27pm Mon 13 Aug 07
The debate goes on, and on, and on.I have been part of it for too long already. If only we could have something as simple as a PARK! Nothing fanciful[bold]bold[/bold] , nothing pretentious, nothing expensive - just parkland, for everyone to enjoy.
The debate goes on, and on, and on.I have been part of it for too long already. If only we could have something as simple as a PARK! Nothing fanciful , nothing pretentious, nothing expensive - just parkland, for everyone to enjoy.
Posted by: Theresa Connolly, West Dulwich Resident on 9:00am Thu 16 Aug 07
I as a member of Friends of The Earth SOUTHWARK and my FOE colleagues firmly disagree that housing should be part of park renovoation
I as a member of Friends of The Earth SOUTHWARK and my FOE colleagues firmly disagree that housing should be part of park renovoation
Posted by: linda Jacob, Crystal Palace on 1:15pm Tue 4 Sep 07
I think it is terrible that the LDA are planning to sell off part of the Park for housing. It is ironic that they have thus far spent £5 million on "persuading us" of a scheme which has gone no where and they now want to sell off part of the Park for housing to raise £11 million. We are selling off the park to pay for the consultaion!! We should never sell off parkland. I know that locally Hadden is fighting for the by election on Thursday to be a referendum on this issue - to save the Park - but where is everyone else on this issue!! We must all rally together to fight this issue - we want to keep the Park
I think it is terrible that the LDA are planning to sell off part of the Park for housing. It is ironic that they have thus far spent £5 million on "persuading us" of a scheme which has gone no where and they now want to sell off part of the Park for housing to raise £11 million. We are selling off the park to pay for the consultaion!! We should never sell off parkland. I know that locally Hadden is fighting for the by election on Thursday to be a referendum on this issue - to save the Park - but where is everyone else on this issue!! We must all rally together to fight this issue - we want to keep the Park
Posted by: Javier Pes, gipsy hill on 11:16am Mon 10 Sep 07
The so-called 'Energy Tower' seems rather a waste of money if you can't climb to the top to admire the view. Apparently the tree top walk will be the highest you can get.
When Brunel built his magnificent water tower **** chimneys visitors paid good money to enjoy the views - to Berkshire and Essex on a clear day.
Also, why on earth fill in the 50m swimming pool to create indoor pitches, and then bury the pool where a perfectly good, and historic, athletic stadium stands?
As for planting trees on the site of the actual Crystal Palace, hasn't someone done that already?
I'm all in favour of investing in the park and commemorating its history, but the pretty plans seem rather underwhelming overpriced and in places wrongheaded.
Javier Pes
Gipsy Hill
The so-called 'Energy Tower' seems rather a waste of money if you can't climb to the top to admire the view. Apparently the tree top walk will be the highest you can get.
When Brunel built his magnificent water tower **** chimneys visitors paid good money to enjoy the views - to Berkshire and Essex on a clear day.
Also, why on earth fill in the 50m swimming pool to create indoor pitches, and then bury the pool where a perfectly good, and historic, athletic stadium stands?
As for planting trees on the site of the actual Crystal Palace, hasn't someone done that already?
I'm all in favour of investing in the park and commemorating its history, but the pretty plans seem rather underwhelming overpriced and in places wrongheaded.
Javier Pes
Gipsy Hill
What are these links for?
If you liked this article and would like to share it with others on the web who might be searching for good content we've made it easy for you to do it.
At the bottom of all articles, you'll see links to six sites. These sites - commonly called 'social bookmark' or 'social news' sites - have large communities of web users who share and rate interesting, useful and fun things on the web.
Clicking the links will automatically add the address of the story you are reading to one of these sites, letting you share it with others. Each site will ask you to register to share stories. Registration is free and once a member, you can store, recommend and search for stories that interest you.
More on Digg
More on del.icio.us
More on Furl
More on reddit
More on NowPublic/
More on Yahoo!
