52 replies to this topic

[Ziwa]

The title of the Evening Standard article is right on target:

Homes will be built in historic Crystal Palace park

and that is the crux of the matter, both for our park and for precedence elsewhere.

[Axean]

I think a few of you have misunderstood some of the implications of the legal ruling. This court case was not an appeal. You can not appeal against an approved planning permission. Cases like this challenge whether planning permission lawfully allows the proposals, or if correct procedure has been followed. The Judge would have accepted the "opinions" of the Inspector/Secretary of State and looked at whether the procedure was lawful. He has judged it was.

I've personally made a decision a few years back to concentrate on the Biodiversity issues that have been woefully and, in my opinion, stupidly ignored during the Masterplan planning application procedure.

The Council and Secretary of State have both dealt with Biodiversity by more or less stating "Natural England have not objected" This primarily related to the parks regional importance for 10 species of bat and the likely harm the Masterplan would cause to these species local conservation status. The overriding protection for bats is found within criminal law (Conservation & Habitats Regulations), and councils must "have regard" for this law during planning applications. During the Masterplan Process the Council and Secretary of State both affectively set aside the "bat issue" on the grounds "natural england have not objected". A court agreed with this approach during a separate planing challenge in jan 2011, and the Judge in the CPCA challenge had to follow this ruling. Subsequent to the initial ruling Natural England released standing advice that they do not consider the 'Habitats Regulations' when responding during a planning application, and that their views must never used to imply an application is suitable with regards to biodiversity unless they clearly state so.

The CPCA ruling confirms that Masterplan has successfully gone through the outline 'planning policy' stage, but it also confirms the Masterplan must now obtain European Protected Species Licences.
Therefore the Masterplan has not been 'approved'

The applicant have must now seek permission for several European Protected Species Licences. They will not come from the easily lobbied 'Natural England London', but from the fairly independent national Wildlife Licensing Unit (slightly less easy to lobby). To get these licences the applicant must prove three tests are met The council/lda has up to now avoided the issue by saying "natural england has not objected", but that wont work with the Wildlife Licensing Unit. All planning advice, including LDA leaflets, advise applicants to get three tests dealt with during the planing application process, which in this case has clearly not happened. If you fail to have the 'three tests' dealt with during the planning phase then there's a high chance you wont be be able to prove you meet the 'three tests'. This definitely applies for the Masterplan.

The "bat issues" would never have been an issue for a property developer. They would have understood the seriousness of the criminal law, and importance of the site being of 'Regional Importance'. A developer would have dealt with the situation before the planning application was submitted. They would have worked with ecologists and local wildlife organisation at an early stage. A developer would not have failed to contact local wildlife organisations or had the bat surveys done after the application was sent off the the printers. A property developer would have been able to deliver twice the amount of housing in CPP, and prove a significant biodiversity gain. For a Property Developer it would have been a trivial issue because they would have dealt with it up front and not put the issue off by hiding behind "natural england have not objected"

I was shocked that not once during the planning process did the LDA or Masterplanners contact the relevant wildlife organisations. A very signficant action when you see who else they contacted.
Bromley have just made it worse by setting up a group with no expert wildlife input, or any organisation representing a wildlife interest. (The eden project people do not count)

I suppose those of you with a keen interest in the details of the application now get to have some fun time hunting down info on the Habitats Regs and the 'Three Tests'

[RetiredMember1]

A fascinating insight, Axean - thanks. Why does the Eden Project not count as offering expert wildlife input, in your view?

Edited by GillW, 21 June 2012 - 02:09 PM.

[Dazza]

I fully understand the legal ruling but just dont have the same moral stance as you !

Dazza

PS Thats life !

[Ziwa]

If I can comment here, Eden doesn't deal in basic research or surveys on native fauna & flora. They are essentially an visitor attraction and event-staging organisation.

Edited by Ziwa, 21 June 2012 - 02:52 PM.

[Dazza]

Wikipedia seem to have got it wrong as well

The Eden Project is a visitor attraction in Cornwall in the United Kingdom, including the world's largest greenhouse.[1][2] Inside the artificial biomes are plants that are collected from all around the world. The project is located in a reclaimed Kaolinite pit, located 1.25 mi (2 kilometres) from the town of St Blazey and 5 kilometres (3 mi) from the larger town of St Austell, Cornwall.[3]

The complex is dominated by two huge enclosures consisting of adjoining domes that house thousands of plant species,[4] and each enclosure emulates a natural biome. The domes consist of hundreds of hexagonal and pentagonal, inflated, plastic cells supported by steel frames. The first dome emulates a tropical environment, and the second a Mediterranean environment.

[Ziwa]

Looks a reasonable description to me - I should have written visitor attraction (and event staging) organisation.

[misspoddy]

Fascinating indeed. Weirdly spooky too.
Any of you read FREEDOM by Franzen???

[charlie]

Looks a reasonable description to me - I should have written visitor attraction (and event staging) organisation.

Really Ziwa? I thought the Eden Project was about much more than that.


What's it all about?

The Eden Project does much more than offer a memorable day out in Cornwall. Eden is also a charity and social enterprise.

As well as creating stunning gardens and laying on fantastic arts and music events, much of our energy goes into:

• running transformational social and environmental projects on our doorstep and around the world
• creating unforgettable learning experiences for students
• doing valuable research into plants and conservation
• making sure we run our operations in the greenest possible way.

Visit our areas of work below or browse all of Eden's projects and programmes.

Edited by charlie, 21 June 2012 - 04:52 PM.

[Axean]

A fascinating insight, Axean - thanks. Why does the Eden Project not count as offering expert wildlife input, in your view?

Ziwa and Dazza have summed up the nature of The Eden Project

Relevant organisations to give expert biodiversity input would have been the London Wildlife Trust, the Trust for Urban Ecology, Peoples Trust for Endangered Species, etc

[Ziwa]

There is absolutely nothing to be ashamed about in being a visitor attraction - they do a really great job. They do it by outreach on all kinds of things that I happen to think are really important.
But despite this statement 'doing valuable research into plants and conservation' (of which they do a very limited amount of primary research or survey work, if at all (as I couldn't find it on their webpages, nor in Google Scholar) that is not one of their key strengths. And besides, the discussion here happens to focus on animal biodiversity - Eden is largely botanical in focus.

To add on to Axean's post:
The AMC - Angela Marmot Centre for UK Biodiversity....there are a wide range of places with appropriate expertise.

Edited by Ziwa, 21 June 2012 - 05:30 PM.

[charlie]

I was shocked that not once during the planning process did the LDA or Masterplanners contact the relevant wildlife organisations. A very signficant action when you see who else they contacted.
Bromley have just made it worse by setting up a group with no expert wildlife input, or any organisation representing a wildlife interest. (The eden project people do not count)

I suppose those of you with a keen interest in the details of the application now get to have some fun time hunting down info on the Habitats Regs and the 'Three Tests'

Fail to understand why you mentioned them in the first place then Axean. It's good to see that you and Ziwa know better than the Eden Project as to the nature of what they are about.

I've been involved in a much larger masterplanning project than this, which is being delivered now and we certainly didn't have an expert wildlife input, or any organisation representing a wildlife interest on the board. A project board can bring expertise in at any time it is required, which I am sure is what the Crystal Palace Park Management Board will do.

There is absolutely nothing to be ashamed about in being a visitor attraction - they do a really great job. They do it by outreach on all kinds of things that I happen to think are really important.
But despite this statement 'doing valuable research into plants and conservation' (of which they do a very limited amount of primary research or survey work, if at all (as I couldn't find it on their webpages, nor in Google Scholar) that is not one of their key strengths.

I doubt the Eden Project is ashamed at all Ziwa. What an odd thing to say.

Edited by charlie, 21 June 2012 - 05:31 PM.

[charlie]

There is absolutely nothing to be ashamed about in being a visitor attraction - they do a really great job. They do it by outreach on all kinds of things that I happen to think are really important.
But despite this statement 'doing valuable research into plants and conservation' (of which they do a very limited amount of primary research or survey work, if at all (as I couldn't find it on their webpages, nor in Google Scholar) that is not one of their key strengths. And besides, the discussion here happens to focus on animal biodiversity - Eden is largely botanical in focus.

To add on to Axean's post:
The AMC - Angela Marmot Centre for UK Biodiversity....there are a wide range of places with appropriate expertise.

Regardless of what the discussion is focussing on Ziwa and whatever Eden's focus is, the Eden Project are not sitting on the Project Board as the experts on biodiversity as far as I am aware. The Eden Project brings a range of experience, knowledge and skills in a number of different areas to the CPP Management Board. Axean has jumped to completely the wrong conclusion about their involvement.

Edited by charlie, 21 June 2012 - 05:55 PM.

[Ziwa]

..... the Eden Project are not sitting on the Project Board as the experts on biodiversity as far as I am aware. The Eden Project brings a range of experience, knowledge and skills in a number of different areas to the CPP Management Board. Axean has jumped to completely the wrong conclusion about their involvement.

I think that what Axean was saying is that Eden are not there to provide biodiv input, nor could they in this context. He mentioned them as a 'notwithstanding' comment, in that despite the fact that their business is built on outreach about the living world (which they do splendidly) the kind of input he was referring to is not represented on the board or in the consultation process. I, for one, welcome them in the process for what they do as their core activities.

So, phew, you don't actually disagree with either Axean or me!

But that doesn't change Axean's charge that there was inadequate biodiversity input in the planning process.

[Axean]

Ziwa is correct. I am not in attacking the Eden Project, I welcome there input. I mentioned them because because an earlier post inferred there could be ecological input from The Eden Project.