Jump to content


Photo

LDA Masterplan upheld


  • Please log in to reply
52 replies to this topic

#16 RetiredMember2

RetiredMember2

    Member

  • Members 3
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,955 posts

Posted 13 June 2012 - 01:05 PM

Sorry, I beg to differ. The 68mill development was not the issue under contention. That is the end result if about 60mill plus can be found from other sources.
The most descriptive and neutral title would be 'Judge upholds Bromley's right to sell off Metropolitan Open Land of Crystal Palace Park'. Adding the implication that it will get anywhere close to the needed funds for developing the park is misleading. Much more importantly, it sets a terrible precident for the rest of the country.


I'm not sure what was wrong with the original title - nor was i aware that there was a duplicate thread discussing this as the news was hot off press. If i was going to be more specific I would have called it LDA Masteplan Upheld any chance we could simplify it?

GillW said it very well.
Kibitzer, this will do almost nothing to get the renovations going in the park. It will raise 10% or less of the needed funds. You can't even get a mortgage on a house these days with only 10% down.


And the revenue gained from sale of parkland, even when seeded funded, will be subsumed by the increased costs of implemetation - we're no longer looking at £67m it's way over £100m.

And there's the increased costs of the upkeep of the Masterplan on the anual CPP budget - how will they be met? Sale of more parkland perhaps? Pay to play? Pay to walk, run, skate or cycle?

A judge upholding a decsion is not a guarantee that all grounds of a challenge were given due consideration.

#17 Dazza

Dazza

    Council Boy

  • Members 3
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,280 posts

Posted 13 June 2012 - 02:52 PM

Its a bloody big step though !

You will have chain yourself to the gates Citizen M i guess !

Dazza
Your obviously mistaken me with someone who gives a fig

#18 FitzRoy

FitzRoy

    Member

  • Members 2
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 431 posts

Posted 13 June 2012 - 02:58 PM

Does the new development have a site for travellers ? Bromley council committed to provide more pitches for the traveller community on any future large projects - anybody read the fine details or might it slip under the radar . :ph34r:

#19 RetiredMember2

RetiredMember2

    Member

  • Members 3
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,955 posts

Posted 13 June 2012 - 03:21 PM

Does the new development have a site for travellers ? Bromley council committed to provide more pitches for the traveller community on any future large projects - anybody read the fine details or might it slip under the radar . :ph34r:


The travellers are there already FitzRoy - on the road that swings by the nether regions of the NSC adjacent to the CPFC bubble!


You will have chain yourself to the gates Citizen M i guess !


Only if i find the right bikini :D

#20 RetiredMember2

RetiredMember2

    Member

  • Members 3
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,955 posts

Posted 14 June 2012 - 04:08 PM

Some of the headlines relating to this ruling seek to imply that there is £68m sitting around in a bank somewhere just waiting to be invested in CPP. This is not the case - there is currently no funding, public or private for the implementation of this grand Matserplan.

I would have thought seeing as how £10m has been spent on the creation up of the Masterplan that a key aspect such as funding would have been included.

Sadly the only funding explored so far is through sale of parkland and there is no guarantee that the park will reap the negligible revenue of any land sale prior to the construction of the houses.

Edited by citizen M, 14 June 2012 - 04:09 PM.


#21 jamesl

jamesl

    Member

  • Members 3
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,887 posts

Posted 14 June 2012 - 08:32 PM

There is no guarantee that the park will reap the negligible revenue of any land sale prior to the construction of the houses


Not sure I'd call £11 million "negligible" nor what leads you to the conclusion that there is no guarantee the park will reap it.

As required by the SoS the amended planning agreements entered into between Bromley and the LDA contain a copy of the agreement a developer must enter into before undertaking any development.

The agreement includes express, contractually binding guarantees that a minimum sum of £11 Million , must be paid up front by the developer into a designated bank account (plus a possible later top up contribution based on profits made the developer) . The agreements also set out that the money must be spent on specific, listed, aspects of the masterplan and that those specific works must be completed before any of the housing can be occupied.

I have posted links to these documents several times before in response to similar inaccurate posts about the precise terms of proposed housing and how it fits in with teh masterplan.

The agreements are here.

Attached File  Section 106.pdf   2.53MB   3 downloads

Basically they provide that as a minimum:

1. £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 of the attached)

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 of the attached)

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 of the attached)

There's some visualisations of what the housing might look like here http://www.crystalpa...patternbook.pdf

There's so much, IMHO, inaccurate hyperbole about the housing - take the proposed development of the caravan park. This is land which is not curently accessible as parkland and will not be until the lease is up in 2019. So there's is a 5 year window of opportunity to explore whether alternative funding can be found before a brick can even be laid on this site . And even if development did go ahead the footprint of the housing as far as I can see will actually be much smaller than the current caravan park - so there is a net gain of parkland.

#22 RetiredMember2

RetiredMember2

    Member

  • Members 3
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,955 posts

Posted 14 June 2012 - 09:45 PM

Not sure I'd call £11 million "negligible" nor what leads you to the conclusion that there is no guarantee the park will reap it.


That's not what was posted or concluded.The comment quoted was "There is no guarantee that the park will reap the negligible revenue of any land sale prior to the construction of the houses" not " that there is no guarantee the park will reap" the revenue per se.

The current figure put on sale of parkland, submitted and accepted at the High Court on 7th March, is £5m. The information in the links provided is from 2007. The sum referred to in the comment was £5m not £11m.

take the proposed development of the caravan park....even if development did go ahead the footprint of the housing as far as I can see will actually be much smaller than the current caravan park - so there is a net gain of parkland.


Whilst the footprint of the housing development on Rockhills is slightly smaller than that of the Caravan Club, the surrounding land is still needed to facillitate infrastructure such as access roads, parking and amenity for the 90 households. The Rockhills housing development will not be tucked away behind the trees the drawings show it as being intrusive and ugly IMHO.

#23 jbphoto

jbphoto

    Member

  • Members 3
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 546 posts

Posted 14 June 2012 - 10:37 PM

Actually the net gain to parkland doesn't only apply to the new housing versus caravan site, but also to the many other parts of the park that currently are fenced off, overgrown, or serving as car parking & access roads. On balance I feel this is a good deal, but if between now and 2019, a better alternative to housing development can be found, then so much the better. Realistically however, the choice is bound to be between housing, a football stadium or something ghastly on the topsite. I think it would be tough to better the current plans.
Check out my Interior Photography Blog at http://jamesbalston.squarespace.com

#24 Canon

Canon

    Member

  • Members 2
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 271 posts

Posted 15 June 2012 - 08:27 AM

Article in the about this in last nights Substandard..

#25 Summit Lover

Summit Lover

    Member

  • Sponsors
  • 4,999 posts

Posted 15 June 2012 - 08:47 AM

Article in the about this in last nights Substandard..


http://www.standard....rk-7851002.html


14 June 2012

Residents have lost their fight to block a £68 million development in Crystal Palace Park.

They had opposed the regeneration scheme, which includes two housing developments, saying it would threaten other open spaces and harm “bat commuting routes” across the park.

But after a lengthy legal battle, a High Court judge backed Communities Secretary Eric Pickles’s decision to grant outline planning permission to the masterplan.

The park, designed by Sir Joseph Paxton, was created to house the Crystal Palace, the highlight of the 1851 Great Exhibition.

The palace was destroyed by fire in 1936, but the park, now home to the National Sports Centre and the Italian Terraces, became regarded as “a national asset” and was given a Grade II* listing.

It is also famous for its Dinosaur Court featuring models of dinosaurs and extinct mammals.

Commissioned in 1852 and unveiled in 1854, they were the first dinosaur sculptures in the world.

But the High Court heard that the park was deteriorating and, along with several listed buildings within it, is now on the Heritage at Risk Register.

The objectors were anxious that some of the funding was to come from the two residential developments, close to the Rockhills and Sydenham Gates.

Supporters said the sell-off of land was needed as it will raise £12.8 million to help fund improvements to the park.

Mr Justice Keith turned down the challenge from members of the Crystal Palace Community Association and ruled that Mr Pickles had weighed up the public benefit of the scheme against the small impact on the park’s bats.

The masterplan has the support of Bromley council, Mayor Boris Johnson, English Heritage, Natural England and the Garden History Society.

A spokesman for Mr Johnson said: “The Mayor is pleased that vital regeneration in Crystal Palace Park has moved a step closer. He is committed to finding a workable solution for the area, and has signalled this commitment by setting aside £2 million in this year’s budget to support regeneration, driving jobs and boosting economic growth in the capital.”

#26 Dazza

Dazza

    Council Boy

  • Members 3
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,280 posts

Posted 15 June 2012 - 09:13 AM

The topsite is already ghastly !

Love the way the papers say the park is the home of the CP sports centre& the italian terraces ! Both blots on the landscape & both need serious work !

Dazza
Your obviously mistaken me with someone who gives a fig

#27 jamesl

jamesl

    Member

  • Members 3
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,887 posts

Posted 15 June 2012 - 10:41 AM

. On balance I feel this is a good deal, but if between now and 2019, a better alternative to housing development can be found, then so much the better. Realistically however, the choice is bound to be between housing, a football stadium or something ghastly on the topsite. I think it would be tough to better the current plans

I completely agree. There is no pot of gold sitting around in either the LDA or Bromleys coffers to spend on the park, more so now than ever given the cuts to local authority funding. The CPCA challenge to the MP would, if succesful, have set aside the approval of all of it, not just the housing elements. The housing may have been the motivation for the challenge but the net effect would have been setting aside the SoS's approval of the entire planning application. IMHO this would have left the park without a settled, transparent, and approved planning application which provides a road map for the future of the park.(the LDA could hardly resubmit a revised application, without houisng, given it has now been abolished). Scrapping the MP or setting it aside would , IMHO, have left the park totally at the mercy of yet more alternative and speculative proposals like commercial development of the topsite. And I just don't accept some the figures which are being talked about. The legal agreements I posted (which date from September 2010 , not 2007 as suggested) are clear in their terms - £11 million , paid up front, before a single brick is laid, and which must be used for specificied parts of of the MP before occupation of the housing. And the money is , and always was, only seen as part of a funding solution - including exploring match funding from other sources because the MP was designed to be implemented in phases, not all at once. The need to explore other funding sources was clearly articulated as were potential sources (see page 49 of this , for example http://www.crystalpa...on_Strategy.pdf) As matters stand: 1. Bromley are currently exploring whether their contribution to Lee Valley Park could be redirected to CPP 2. We have the new Executive Board in place looking at a community trust to run the park (including raising revenue). The Executive Board includes the Eden Foundation (which I think most will admit are pretty good at fusing ecology with commercial revenue), and English Heritage are on board too - so we might, just might , have a decent shot at a profesionally put together appliction by well informed stakeholders for significant capital from other sources - for example by a Heritage Lottery fund application which is matched/seeded by the money from housing. 3. We have the LDA providing £2 million (with more to follow perhaps) 4. We have the chance of the future management of the Park being placed in the hands of a Community Trust, rather than Bromley alone, so that potentaily contentious decisions about raisng both capital and opertaional costs are made collectively rather than by a single Council which, understandbly in my view, is not particularly willing to have to bear the cost alone, out Bromley council tax payers pockets, of maintaining what is a regional, rather than a local , park used by a large numeber of people from across London and the UK. 5. The housing involves selling off parts of the park which have not been acessible "parkland" for a very long time and , in one case, is already occupied by a commercial business (the caravan club) which occupies over 1 acre more of parkland than than wouuld be the case with the housing and which , comparing annual rents against a potential of £5-£6million of capital from sale of the site , does not IMHO offer best value in relation to badly needed park funding. Personally I think the above are positive signs which offer hope for the future of the park. And far far better than another decade of uncertainty over the park - which, IMHO, would do nothing other than play into the hands of those who feel that the best funding solution would be a Hotel and leisure complex on the top site or a deal with the CPFC to turn over a National sports asset, adajact to a tranquil public park, to a consortia of private businessmen for football matches and, possibly, concerts .

Better the devil you know ???

Edited by jamesl, 15 June 2012 - 10:46 AM.


#28 FitzRoy

FitzRoy

    Member

  • Members 2
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 431 posts

Posted 15 June 2012 - 11:11 AM

On reflection i think a new use of the site would serve the local community better - A NEW PRISON !

Hundreds of building jobs - prison staff - contractors etc

Local thugs could be fast tracked into it - a prisoners garden could produce quality vegtables - sports centre used for recreation time - all visitors charged to visit prisoners via turnstyles - new bands and film makers would have a captive audience - chalky soil good for english vineyards - KICC could preach somewhere without 25 CR - Acorn could sponsor it - CPFC would have first pick of talent !

You know it makes sense - as much sense as LDA anyway.

Attached Files



#29 kibitzer

kibitzer

    Member

  • Members 2
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 342 posts

Posted 15 June 2012 - 01:03 PM

Just a continuation to the community service spent painting the railings around the entrance - at a snails pace when I saw them all there with their brushes and pots of paint.

#30 RetiredMember1

RetiredMember1

    Member

  • Members 3
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,066 posts

Posted 15 June 2012 - 02:45 PM

Are they back, or is this a historical reference?! I saw some likely lads waiting around on Sunday morning...