Jump to content


Photo

Crystal Palace Park Community Stakeholder Group comments on CSM propos

Crystal Palace Park Community Stakeholder Group National Sports Centre NSC

  • Please log in to reply
3 replies to this topic

#1 CommunityStakeholderGroup

CommunityStakeholderGroup

    New Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 3 posts

Posted 11 November 2014 - 10:50 AM

Please read and share our November Newsletter which details our thoughts on the CSM proposals for the National Sports Centre

 

http://us6.campaign-archive1.

 

If you would like any further information please e-mail contact@crystalpalacepark.org.uk



#2 CommunityStakeholderGroup

CommunityStakeholderGroup

    New Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 3 posts

Posted 11 November 2014 - 01:36 PM

Sorry we have just been informed the link in the above message does not work

 

Please use this one

 

http://us6.campaign-...b7&e=127e1eaef5



#3 JMS

JMS

    Member

  • Members 3
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 328 posts

Posted 11 November 2014 - 05:44 PM

 


 


very well written - I am in total agreement


Edited by JMS, 11 November 2014 - 05:45 PM.


#4 ChewderOde

ChewderOde

    Member

  • Members 3
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,965 posts

Posted 11 November 2014 - 09:37 PM

Yeah, I think it says pretty much what me and most of those I know think about the proposals and how they have been presented

 

- this is part of what I put on my return in the consultation exercise:

 

  • The changes affect more than is just the NSC and therefore I believe the public consultation was wrong to be buried within just the sports centre which to most local people, is well out of the way

 

  • The mooted £65M Invested in C Palace park / NSC supporting the “masterplan”, booted around when the National Sport status was to be demoted to regional sport status (once Stratford was successful in the Olympic bi)d, never materialised – what commitment is there to recompense CP for its loss of the Grand Prix holding NSC – feature in South London?

 

  • The Olympic Legacy seems to be for London to retain its 1 athletics stadium, albeit in a different place (Stratford IN – C Palace OUT), and in order to sustain it, use it mainly as a football ground?

 

  • Why does every proposal include a school?  What local support justifies this being in every proposed option? What percentage of local people are in favour of this restricted access and limited appeal fenced off space in the middle of the park? How does this complement the vision of opening up of the park. How does this proposed development compensate Crystal Palace for the loss of the national status sports facility?

 

  • If the school and GLA were in cahoots to get a primary school built in the park in place of the Grand Prix hosting National Athletics stadium, then I would think it would be a good ploy for them to make sure all of the options up for public consultation included the building of a school, and in some of the proposals ask for more than they know they really need or think they can get away with, so that when they settle for building a fenced off school, using the old athletics track as a playing field, it will try and look like they are being very reasonable and have made a compromise, and local people should be thankful it hasn’t grabbed more of a prime, central  piece of the park. The reality is a nearby primary school was in recent years closed (in Anerley) and in its place was a private development and therefore the net effect to the area if a school is built will be losing the sports facility within the footprint of the park and gaining a private development.






Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Crystal Palace Park, Community Stakeholder Group, National Sports Centre, NSC