170 replies to this topic

[Richard Williams]

Richard Williams, I thought you of all people would have seen the hipocracy with TFL, once the option of taking the tram through this part of the park is eventually chosen then there will be no stopping them because they will cut through more and more of the park. This part of the park is not neglected, that is a poor argument for destroying this lovely historical park. There is a hidden agenda. I'll leave that for you to work out.
[/quote]


What more will Tfl want after they have done this link? Whilst I am open minded on what route I will support, it is vital for the survival of this area, that the tram link goes ahead.

Why would Tfl want to cut through more of the park when they have finished with the extension? Have you heard any other plans in the pipeline?

[Elmo]

I think TFL are being quite balanced in their approach. they're pointing out the pros and cons of the scheme, and I'm happy to base my decision on what they're bringing forward.

If people are serious about wanting to protect/improve the park then there are so many places to start: knock down the tower blocks, get rid of the noise pollution from the model cars, landscape the terraces etc etc Why try and block the construction of a sustainable and usable transport link that will bring considerable quality of life and economic benefit?

This is a public park not a rat run for trams.

As mentioned earlier - we should consider the impact of trams on other municipal parks before arriving at a conclusion.

[Axean]

If people are serious about protecting the park then it needs an income and this section of the park is the best location in the park to put flats on. Despite my obvious strong views on urban sprawl, I am not apposed to property being built in the park as long as it means not loss of important habitat (the ridge is mostly sycamore), no loss of green space (green roof/green wall), no views offered into the park (green wall on park side), and the park retains ownership of the land (rented flats). This land is capable of giving the park an income in access of £500,000 a year. I dont believe tfl have any interest in compulsory purchase ( £12million?) or paying rent. If they were willing to pay the £500,000 a year rent we could get by building "green " flats on the site, then I would be in favour. The rent could go towards a green roof over the tram and improving the rest of the park. But I'm sure tfl dont want to pay rent.

An agreement is possible, and we cant afford another 5 year dispute. And this will be dispute that will tear apart the local community. If tfl goes ahead on the principle "the majority agree" then there will be protests. I was employed by a company involved with the topsite development and know targeting West End cinemas was the main reason the "topsite development" failed. Its obvious that "Save our Park" protests would end up targeting the triangle shops/restuarants in favour of this proposal. We have to find an agreement, not start a destructive fight.

But we're not going to get an agreement, just the 5 year protest

[Axean]

An arguement for the tram is that it hasnt affected other parks its gone through. But these parks already had a views onto the immediate urban area and roads. The affect of a tram on parks where you see the road and housing is small, and has no affect on the ambience of the park.
But unlike the other parks you cannot see the immediate urban area and roads around the Crystal Palace Park. This is one of the things that makes the park so special. When you enter it you leave the urban area behind. As I write this you can be sure there are people at the top of the terrace steps looking out over the peacefull view. The tram would change this. You would be able to see the road, and its noise would always be present. You cant compare the affect of a tram on Crystal Palace Park with Parks where you can already see the surrounding urban area and roads.

And saying that because some areas of the park dont look good, it doenst matter what we do with this part of the park is an arguement I dont undertand. Its like cutting your nose off to spite your face.

[Sylvester]

If the tramlink finished in Ledrington Rd, it would only be four minutes walk from the bus station. Its not worth destorying a section of the park for that.

And a nice walk through the park at that! We're all being told we should take more exercise ... but I suppose they have to cater for the elderly and infirm.

[Julius]

I have no problem with Tramlink coming to the Palace as long as it terminates at Crystal Palace station just not through a park. But I'm afraid this will not be so as the Mayor and TFL want to see the tram go through the park.

I'm quite saddened that the view here is so far to take a public transport vehicle through a 200 acre park. Housing and apartment blocks are not the answer to pay for a park. The damage to both the environment and wildlife from commercialisation such as these is devastating and once its done then it's goodbye to the park as we know it.

[matt]

Axean - Why does the park need another income stream? It should already have one through my taxes. Whether the councils etc decide to spend those taxes on the park is perhaps another issue, but in principle I should be able to force them to do this (or vote them out).

[Richard Williams]

I have no problem with Tramlink coming to the Palace as long as it terminates at Crystal Palace station just not through a park. But I'm afraid this will not be so as the Mayor and TFL want to see the tram go through the park.

The tram is not going to run through the park but on the edge of it. If as you suggest, that Tfl plans was to run the tram through our park, I would be the first person up in arms but this is not the case. The tram link will have very little impact on the outlook the park.

[Elmo]

The tram is not going to run through the park but on the edge of it. If as you suggest, that Tfl plans was to run the tram through our park, I would be the first person up in arms but this is not the case. The tram link will have very little impact on the outlook the park.

Axean's point is that so much vegetation may be removed that the barrier between the park and the road would be destroyed. This seems like a valid concern to me... Can we ensure that some trees will remain to block the view of traffic from the park?

I still think there are other areas of the park of far greater concern than this, but this seems like a reasonable point.

[Richard Williams]

Whilst I agree with Axean point over the loss of some vegetation, Tfl have made it clear that they will replace as much as possible once the tramlink is finished. Whilst I hate to see any of the Park lost we have to be realistic for the sake of progress to our area.

My main point is that certain groups are scaremongering over the proposals. To state that the tram link will run through the park makes it sound that it cuts straight through, and the tram will be seen from all angles. This is not the case.

[Elmo]

Whilst I agree with Axean point over the loss of some vegetation, Tfl have made it clear that they will replace as much as possible once the tramlink is finished.

Even I would admit that it's better to save vegetation than replace it in this case, not at the cost of the project, but it's a point worth pursuing.

My main point is that certain groups are scaremongering over the proposals.

You're quite right - best to meet them head on with reasoned and well-crafted argument... but also be ready to take their concerns on-board

[SimonC]

One of the things that makes the history of Crystal Palace park interesting, is that it has been an ever changing environment which has included many engineering projects taking place in and around it.

Apart from the Crystal Palace itself, the Upper & Lower stations, the Atmospheric Railway and the Brunel water towers, lakes & fountains are just a few that come to mind.

I reiterate my earlier point that I am glad that the Victorians were more innovative and open to ideas for the park than some people currently seem to be. The result was a more vibrant and interesting environment than exists today.

I believe that having the tram run along the edge of the park is the best option for a number of reasons. It will make the service more reliable, it will have the least effect on the road system, it will best link with the train and bus stations (gosh! an integrated transport system). All of this is more likely to encourage people to use public transport in general and the tram in particular, with minimal effect on the park.

Edited by SimonC, 09 November 2006 - 03:05 PM.

[ajames]

Re the tram running "through" the park. The consultation document is very hazy about how much of the park TFL wants. 20 yds, 100yds? Without that information on the interface how can we make an informed judgement.

[Elmo]

Last chance to see the TFL display and ask questions at the Salvation Army Hall on Westow Street. It closes today at 5pm

They have consultation forms you can fill out on the spot.

[Julius]

I am confused Richard Williams, you have said just a few months ago that you do not want housing in the park but you don't mind a tram running through the park and destroying parkland.

That to me is double standards. Where the tram is planned to run in that option, it will cut through the edge of the park from Ledrington Road and run at the parkside entrance to the museum and up to a newly built Tram stop.

But it won't stop there, they will then look at other ways of taking the tram through more parkland. This is buisness and buisness is money so they will drive it through whatever the costs.

As for scaremongering by certain groups, as I recall you backed a local community group just five months ago in not having housing at the Anerley Gate and Rockhills sites, what's the difference here?