Houses built in Crystal palace park?

[Duke of Clarence]

Dth is beginning to sound as threatening as he is hostile. If any integrity is to be questioned here Eagle it is dth's. His passion for all things Masterplan and his group has led him to disclose information that could be seen as confidential and a breech of the forums' confidentiality rules. It really is an unfortunate and ugly way to further a cause/group.

So putting the hysteria and disclosure of incorrect personal information in dth's post aside, I find it extraordinary that the CPTPG quote describes the housing element as "limited residential development" - not even the planning authorities describe that size build as such!

As for the comments about the stakeholder group I fear dth is trying to mislead (again). The stakeholder group is made up of 11 individuals that is correct but as I have already mentioned three of the posts were reserved/ringfenced for members of community groups not just for those who happened to be members as dth would like you to believe. This is how it is set out in the Terms of Reference:

13.1 The membership of the Crystal Palace Park Community Stakeholder Group
shall be by appointment only. Up to 11 membership opportunities will be advertised in the local and national press and members appointed after a formal interview process. Three of these membership opportunities will be ring-fenced for representatives from existing local community groups.

Further - the response Clarence House had from Bromely to a query about the ringfenced posts states:

"Prior to the establishment of the Crystal Palace Park Management Board (see attached) a number of existing local groups have worked hard to support Crystal Palace Park and to acknowledge this we were asked to provide 3 positions out of the 11 for people in existing groups to apply. As I’m sure you appreciate there are at least 14 community groups in the area, a lot of people to work with, and we did not want to favour any existing individuals or groups."

The reason I take a keen interest in CPP is because I use it on a more or less daily basis and I really rather like it. As dth is such a vociferous champion of Bromley, the LDA and indeed the Materplan perhpas he could disclose how often he uses CPP and what drives his passion for the Masterplan other than the misplaced belief it would put a stop inappropriate large scale commercial development?

Nice piece in the Grauniad from Giles Fraser:

"I do have a certain sympathy for the council which is seeking to regenerate many of the run-down parts of the area, but the idea that the answer is to be found in selling off public spaces to private property developers, and thus to build more brightly coloured flats, that are often little more than gated communities in the sky, cannot be the right way forward.’

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... NTCMP=SRCH

[downthehill]

I've threatened nothing and no one. What is the basis for such a remark ?

Respectfully you chose, unilaterally, to set out that a particular local group had a particular view on the park. Your description was wrong and all I have done, as someone who knows the true position, is to set out the correct position with reference to the group's public statement

Your suggestion that I am posting on behalf of a group is also wrong. My opinions are my own. I speak for myself on this forum.

In what way have I breached confidentiality ? By referring to the fact that you were involved in the production and approval of the statement I referred to ? I have not named you nor have I given any information which might lead to your identification.

As for integrity - go back and read your own post - you have suggested that the recruitment process for 2 of the 11 members of the community stakeholder group was , and I quote , "a stich up".

The implication is clear a far as I can see, namely a wholly unworthy maligning of two individual residents who applied to join the stakeholder group by implying they were selected because they support the M)P, and not because they met the criteria and the skills looked for.

The recruitment process for all 11 applicants, the skills sought and the duties and obligations was and is identical for all 11 selected candidates.

On what basis therefore do you have the right to insinuate that the 2 were selected was a "stich up" rather than a selection based on merit ?

[Duke of Clarence]

The information dth posts is personal, inaccurate, untrue and verges on hysteria.

Dth breached confidentiality rules by chosing to dislcose personal information about another poster - made worse by the fact that what he disclosed was incorrect and in my view malicious, such as the speculation about gender. Very unpleasent and tedious as I am forced to respond each time to address the distortions and misrepresentations.

Be very interesting to understand why he's so het up about the Masterplan though-anyone would think it had been quashed the way he's responding so rabidly to those who are disappointed to learn that it wasn't!

Re Stakeholder group dth brought it up, I responded to his post with observations that two out of three groups with representatives holding ringfenced posts were "ardent supporters of the MP". Dth decided to declare that he is part of one of the groups but that his group is not an ardent supporter of the MP - I stand corrected his group just supports the MP it is dth who is the ardent supporter.

I have quoted the Terms of Reference and Bromley council's own explanation of the makeup of the Stakeholder group, not mine, yet still dth seeks to present his own distorted version. In the same way he insists that comments made regards the tone of his remarks coming across as arrogant and intolerant were being directed at his views. Again I thought I made my postion clear but I'll try for third and final time it is not dth's views that I find arrogant, intolerant and hostile - it is the way he chooses to express them. I find his claims about how he knows me worrying as he seems to be hinting he may disclose more (??) and the speculation about my gender uncomforatble and unwelcome.

I will not respond to dth anymore as my responses clearly feed his frenzy.

[Dorian]

Dth breached confidentiality rules by chosing to dislcose personal information about another poster -

Ahem ? something you have never done Duke ?

[downthehill]

The reason I take a keen interest in CPP is because I use it on a more or less daily basis and I really rather like it. As dth is such a vociferous champion ......of the Materplan perhpas he could disclose how often he uses CPP and what drives his passion for the Masterplan

Because I believe it offers a decent future for the park.

As for how often I use the park What is the relevance ?.

Are you suggesting that because you, apparently, use it every day your opinion is somehow more valid than another resident ?

As it happens I have used the park during every single year of my 43 years - I took my first few steps as child there, met motorbikers at races marshalled by my Dad, learned to ride my bike there, learned to swim in the NSC, enjoyed the children's zoo and the adventure playground , learned archery with the Olympic team, football skills with CPFC and other sports during the GLC sponsored summer holiday events, saw workd records broken at athletics events, spent teenage years knocking around with mates in the park and going to concerts, watched fireworks nights as a kid and other events

And as an adult I ahve done much of the above as a parent, with my own family.

In short it's been part of my life for every stage of my life and I am very fond of it.

You've previously accused me of arrogance but if how much/often a person uses the park somehow validates/invalidates their opinion I am afraid that you have just taken arrogant one upmanship off the scale.

Dth is beginning to sound as threatening as he is hostile
The information dth posts is personal, inaccurate, untrue

So if i don't know who you are, care to explain how you know I am a he ? If you are going to make complaints of such a serious nature at least do so by telling the truth. I've made no threat to you or your confidentiality - every single one of my posts refers to "he/she".
Eagle queried why and I made clear I did so to respect your anonymity by leaving matters ambiguous.

[leenewham]

Sorry, but what are you talking about Duke?

Where has Downthehill threatened you. I read through the posts and can't find anything.

It's a serious accusation and deserves clarification. Perhaps I have missed something.

Care to answer Duke?

Also, look at my previous post, if you feel like answering any of the questions there also please feel free.

Thanks

[Rachael]

I always understood from references elsewhere (mainly in the Pub) that the Duke was a lady, but that of course may have been some elaborate in-joke.

I don't see how revealing someone's gender here (which has not actually been done, as dth says above) affects their anonymity online. It only narrows it down to half the population.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[Duke of Clarence]

Sorry, but what are you talking about Duke? Where has Downthehill threatened you. I read through the posts and can't find anything.It's a serious accusation and deserves clarification. Perhaps I have missed something. Care to answer Duke?

Lee - You may not find dth's posts threatening or hostile but they are not directed at you. What I find threatening in the recent posts is that they imply he has personal knowledge that he will choose to post if he so wishes. rshdunlop - the gender speculation is simply tedious as is the constant distortion of what is posted.

For example I asked how often dth used the park because he was such a vociferous supporter of the Masterplan - not for any other reason. I did not imply that frequency of park use should bring about special entitlement.

Now back on topic - the cost of implentation is set at 2007 prices and excludes professal fees. £11m will only stretch so far...

And regards the "pay to play" comment - there will be entry fees for a number of the new facilities. Other revenue is expected to be raised from increasing the number of events hosted however the number of events could have been increased without the need for the Masterplan.

[downthehill]

What I find threatening in the recent posts is that they imply he has personal knowledge that he will choose to post if he so wishes

I have implied no such thing. I have said no such thing and I have done no such thing. Nor have i any intention of doing so.

Eagle asked me

Puzzled why you put he /she . If she would be Duchess

To which I replied

Because forums are anonymous so I dont wish to be accused of breaching anonymity, even though I know the Duke so I left it ambiguous

If you feel I have breached your confidentiality then take it up with the moderators please.

[leenewham]

Actually Duke, you told everyone you were a lady on this forum ages ago.

http://sydenham.org.uk/forum/viewtopic. ... ady#p43308

I've been party to some pretty stern comments in my time. I suggest, respectfully, that if some of the posts in this thread have offended you that you develop a thicker skin as I can't find anything remotely offensive.

I hope that you don't find anything I write offensive Duke.

Anyway, going back to my question Duke, if housing was taken out of the equation, are there ANY elements of the masterplan that you support?

It's about a lot more than the housing and I think it's important to discuss it.

So Duke, Sherry or Port? I'm a fan of a nice chilled Fino myself.

[Annie.]

So,at the end of the day Lee, being a resident of Sydenham,do you think the plan is a good one? Will the houses interfere with Sydenham,I live near CP park and want to know if I should be worried or excited about the plans and trust your judgement.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[leenewham]

Well, make up your own mind Annie.

The houses are being built in the same line as the magnificent victorian villas already there or in the caravan park. If (and it's a big if) the buildings do justice to the area and look as good, if not better than the visuals then I think it's positive. The land they will be built on has been designated for housing since 1990.

The main problems I have with the plans is that they don't celebrate the palace enough. Overall they are positive and the central boulevard looks promising. I'd love to see the terraces restored a little, but still retain some of their overgrown charm like they have been discovered by Indiana Jones. And I'm unsure about the large greenhouses.

It's respecting the layers of history of the park that I think are important. The top site, where the palace was (it was basically right up against the road) has millions of tons or rubble and cars buried there from ww2 (when you walk along the top site there was a basement under your feet which is now full of London stock brick and Austin 7's.)

That too deserves a bit of celebration in my opinion.

I think that's more important than holding up the plans for some housing, most of which appears will be built on the site of Paxtons former Rockhills house.

[downthehill]

The main problems I have with the plans is that they don't celebrate the palace enough

That one’s a tricky balance I think because no one ,I don’t think., would want a return to this (although its a useful reminder that the park was not always a park as such



But on the other the trees cut into the shape of the crystal palace, the boulevards and the sunken garden and fountains envisaged at the north end of the terrace (pages 1110-115 are at least evocative of some of old palace

http://www.crystalpalacecampaign.org/Ma ... ntVOL1.pdf

Incidentally Lee – the location and visuals for the proposed removal of the car park and returning this to parkland is at page 116

[Annie.]

Thank you Lee.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[leenewham]

Having been distracted by the link above, I have to say it's brilliant.

We have been pissing around for far too long. Just do it for gods sake!

[tulse hill terry]

Er, because the millions of pounds to fund it don't exist ?

And I would think that is holding up any implementation of the masterplan, rather than any well reasoned or personally vituperative exchanges either here or anywhere else.

The Rockhills site will be re - developed - eventually, but as to butterfly houses or trickles of water down the middle of the park ? Not in my lifetime.

[ALIB]

Bromley want money up front from any developers for the housing. £5M , if i recall correctly, to get things started.

Personally, i am now of the opinion that the Master Plan will never take-off, as there are too many issues reliant on Council funding, and uncertainty in the UK economy.

As THT suggests, the houses may still get built, but don't hold your breath for a transformation of CPP

[tulse hill terry]

I think the worst thing about all these empty promises, which from what I recall if the public meetings, were supported with high approval ratings from earlier meetings with local community groups, without housing having being cleariy presented as part of the cost.

Despite any pre-existing desire for improvement locally , what was supposed to bring the community together, has instead caused division and fighting between each other.

I became suspicious when much redundant fencing, which could be removed at low cost, wasn't immediately removed, and remains today. We will have to wait till the Masterplan gets what it wants, before more public space is freed up. Redevelopment is an ultimatum, and improvements a bargaining chip.

£2,000,000 for a few granite benches and the demolition of a turnstile ? A £20,000 show for 2000 visitors ?

Why are local residents fighting each other over plans that are millions and millions and millions of pounds away ? The Greyhound was demolished after all. Whatever it's replaced with, the developers got their way.

[downthehill]

You may be right THT. Only time will tell.

But there is an assumption that the sales will go ahead - which is not cast in stone - The Caravan Park for example has a lease until 2019 so there is still time to explore other options and as has already been pointed out the housing market has changed - so the up front cost of £11 million (see below) may now be too rich for many deveopers blood - so the No campaign gets its way by default so to speak.

All in the section 106's from 2010, which were an express requirement of the SoS's approval, provide that the developer must pay £12 million (plus a profit top up in certain circumstances) and the monies must be spent on designated parts of the MP - I don't know how to upload a pdf on this site but the full legal agreements can be read at post here (post 21)

. £5 million must be paid up front and applied towards specific aspects of the masterplan (described as "Part A work's and set out at page 16

2. £6 million must be paid up front and applied towards specific aspects of the masterplan (described as "Part B work's and set out at page 17)

3. £1 million must be paid up front and applied towards specific aspects of the masterplan (described as "Part C work's and set out at page 17)

http://www.virtualnorwood.com/forum/top ... ge__st__15

It's worth remembering that the MP is designed to be implemented in stages and over a period of up to 20 years , as acknowledged by the judge in his opening remarks and set out in para 3.12 of the last link below

http://www.crystal-palace-mag.co.uk/cpc ... park-plan/

And a number of additional/alternative funding options are actively being explored, including investigation of options to challenge the Lee Valley Park Act 1966 in collaboration with neighbouring boroughs to obtain agreement to reinvest Bromley's funds in Crystal Palace Park.

Presently the act obliges Bromley,Croydon, and Lambeth to contribute about £3 per household to the Lee Valley Park fund

http://www.parliament.the-stationery-of ... 10p-03.htm

The exploration of a community trust also includes exploring revenue streams -

http://cds.bromley.gov.uk/documents/s10 ... 20Park.pdf

Whilst I can understand opposition to the housing surely, at the very least, we don't want any further deterioration of the terraces which are already on the heriatge at risk register ? The last significant sum (£4.4 million) was in 1999 - the clock, in my opinion, is ticking and unless someone comes up with a viable alternative to capital funding I fear all the wrangling will mean we lose what we have.

Far better, in my view, to accept that the MP is here and work with stakeholders to try to find a pragmatic solution which most can live with - even Ian Paisley's Never Never Never stance eventually had to change because strident and immoveable positions, which give no room for others views, will never lead to peaceful coexistence.

[tulse hill terry]

While a plan that is staggered may seem more achievable, it's also prone to mission creep and a turnover of leaders that mean all momentum is lost.

Why NOTHING can be done in the meantime, clearly indicates to me that for any user of the park to see these improvements, housing development will have to come FIRST, and that this is NOT negotiable. This impasse is what creates a space for heated debate here, and not that these views have to be resolved before anything can happen.

Presumably there is no political prestige to be gained from doing anything but construction. Looking through the Masterplan again last night, I could see features that have since disappeared or deteriorated since it was published.