[Fang]

MODERATOR'S NOTE:
This thread was split from the cinema thread as there became talk of a multiplex 2, and a new topic was requested. Apologies if it wasn't split in the best place. Please try to keep your comments in the correct place: either this thread or the cinema thread.

Extra Note: This thread was previously called 'Multiplex 2' - I called it that as a member used that phrase when asking for a new thread on the subject - I wasn't aware that the title would be controversial but had another member as for the title to be changed.

(Sorry for putting this moderator note in your post Fang!)

citizen M, on 14 January 2010 - 11:18 AM, said:

No Charlie I have heard not a thing but like Miss Lizzie says, no surprises there.

Turns out a couple of the Cllrs on the plans sub committee were replaced at the last minute to vote out the first scheme that night and that's where the levels of ignorance re 25CR flowed from. They were only focused on garnering votes from constituents in their part of the borough who were up in arms re Kings Hall Road development, btw that had received only a fraction of the objections 25CR had. Those Cllrs had not bothered with 25CR case that's why they voted for a deferral and the third deferral voter, Cllr Alexa Michel, Keston ward, totally missed the point and banged on about cinema being the lifeline for multiplexes which was immaterial to the case.

Truly inspiring stuff

Speaking of multiplexes when are we going to alert the VN community to the disturbing spectre of Mutliplex2 Charlie? I kid you not. Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the park......ANOTHER ludicrous proposal is gathering steam. More later

Not Ray Hall's 'Anglian Windows'conservatory again!

[citizen M]

Fang, on 14 January 2010 - 11:25 AM, said:

Not Ray Hall's 'Anglian Windows'conservatory again!

You is on the money Fang! Not sure if this is worthy of a new thread yet but for now here's some intel:

This time it comes with political backing from leaders of Bromley and Croydon after behind the doors talks where it appears that Ray has convinced both leaders that Mutliplex2 is the way forward for CPP and has unanimous support from the local community. Both LA's are now funding the Chamber of Commerce which Ray Chairs but it is basically a vehicle for the promotion of Multiplex2. Have you seen front of latest edition of CC mag? Big quote of gushing support from Stephen Carr and picture of what could be possibly the largest UPVC building in the world that will need an entire sub station to power!

Maybe CP is a community full of YIMBYs (yes in my back yard) when it comes to Ray Hall's Mutliplex2, if that's the case then I'm outa here but if it's only Ray's supporters in the Chamber, 55 at most, that are the unanimous supporters, then it is about time the local community made their feelings clear.

I'll be interested to see if the yays really do have it!

This post has been edited by citizen M: 14 January 2010 - 11:45 AM

[Fang]

I've posted on 'The New Crystal Palace' at some length before. Normally in response to Silver.I am aware that the Chamber of Commerce has started lobbying for the new 'Plastic Palace' and a visit to their website suggests Mr Hall is enthusiastically promoting the project in his capacity as Chairman. I'm a little confused as to how Mr Hall became Chairman of the Upper Norwood Chamber of Commerce. It appears his company is based in Greenwich and that, unless I'm mistaken, his principal commercial activity in the Upper Norwood district is the promotion of this project.

However, if this project is now receiving support from Bromley Council (which is a source of concern, bearing in mind their 'previous') and in the spirit of transparency and community involvement, could we now be told;

Who are the Financial backers of this scheme?

What, if any, are the pecuniary/business interests in this project of those who are promoting it?

[QueensPudding]

Fang, on 14 January 2010 - 01:26 PM, said:

I've posted on 'The New Crystal Palace' at some length before. Normally in response to Silver.I am aware that the Chamber of Commerce has started lobbying for the new 'Plastic Palace' and a visit to their website suggests Mr Hall is enthusiastically promoting the project in his capacity as Chairman. I'm a little confused as to how Mr Hall became Chairman of the Upper Norwood Chamber of Commerce. It appears his company is based in Greenwich and that, unless I'm mistaken, his principal commercial activity in the Upper Norwood district is the promotion of this project.

However, if this project is now receiving support from Bromley Council (which is a source of concern, bearing in mind their 'previous') and in the spirit of transparency and community involvement, could we now be told;

Who are the Financial backers of this scheme?

What, if any, are the pecuniary/business interests in this project of those who are promoting it?

Indeed "his principal commercial activity in the Upper Norwood district is the promotion of this project." Which is the usual story with planning. (Since when did any developer ever build a monstrosity in their own back yard?) Only this time he's running the chamber of commerce too! And getting money from the council to do it!

This scheme of his is a pile of poo, but unless people stick their heads over the parapet and make their views known, the council will continue to believe Ray Hall's sales pitch that everyone loves it. Arghhh.

Mr Hall of course stands to gain financially. Considerably.

His backers, I would have thought, are somewhere in the mid-Atlantic Trench. But that won't stop the council from approving a scheme (apparently finance is "not a planning consideration" - the reason for much planning blight across the country)

[citizen M]

Fang, just to be clear, the LA funding is for the Chamber of Commerce not multiplex2 as such.

My point is that as The Chamber is essentially the wheels of promotion for M2 that ultimately LA funding facilitates that function. Also if it is what the overwhelming majority of CP want then that's fair enough and I'll be on the fast train to Nimbyville

[andreas]

Mods - we probably need a new thread for the New Crystal Palace, as lots to discuss...

Probably the most recent statement of the proposals is in the Chamber of Commerce minutes of January 2009:
http://www.norwoodch...anuary-2009.php

As a lot of the detail has yet to be worked out, the Chamber's support was for the proposals in principle.

I may have missed something, but I don't recall Ray Hall having mentioned a multiplex at that meeting or subsequently.

This post has been edited by andreas: 14 January 2010 - 04:13 PM

[Fang]

citizen M, on 14 January 2010 - 03:25 PM, said:

Fang, just to be clear, the LA funding is for the Chamber of Commerce not multiplex2 as such.

My point is that as The Chamber is essentially the wheels of promotion for M2 that ultimately LA funding facilitates that function. Also if it is what the overwhelming majority of CP want then that's fair enough and I'll be on the fast train to Nimbyville

Yes, I'm sorry. I should have made myself clearer. I want to know the name of the commercial/financial backers that have been mentioned but not named, by the advocates of this project. As for claims of an 'overwhelming majority' of locals in support, this is yet another groundless assertion which makes me deeply suspicious of this proposal and those behind it. The fact that these people now appear to be utilising long established local organisations to promote this project is, I believe, indicative of the lack of support The Rebuild The Crystal Palace Campaign secured during its last push.

Thanks for that Queens pud. But I was referring to People and Places Ltd. Ray Halls Architectural Practice, which was named on previous Rebuild The Palace material.

Good idea about a new thread Andreas, I wouldn't want to contaminate the Cinema Thread with this stuff.

[Norwood lad]

Blimey- Theres quite a bit to take in from those minutes to take in and I agree a new thread is probably called for but wil post this anyway as I'm sure the mods will move all these to a correct thread as some point

Not sure who the this mystery 400m developer is as I can only think of two very large projects in South London on this scale, one is the huge Shard of Glass skyscraper being built with Qatari money at London Bridge Station and the other is Battersea Power Station which is backed by an Irish developer ( who doesn't even have the money to develop that) which are costing at least £300m+. Both are costing hundreds of millions of quid and I can't think why either would invest in CP. I know of several other schemes in the 100-200 million scale but they are all stalled due to the recession and the fact theres no money for speculative development for anyone at the moment makes this large investor very intriguing. Anybody know of any £400m developments in South London?

[QueensPudding]

Norwood lad, on 14 January 2010 - 05:07 PM, said:

Blimey- Theres quite a bit to take in from those minutes to take in and I agree a new thread is probably called for but wil post this anyway as I'm sure the mods will move all these to a correct thread as some point

Not sure who the this mystery 400m developer is as I can only think of two very large projects in South London on this scale, one is the huge Shard of Glass skyscraper being built with Qatari money at London Bridge Station and the other is Battersea Power Station which is backed by an Irish developer ( who doesn't even have the money to develop that) which are costing at least £300m+. Both are costing hundreds of millions of quid and I can't think why either would invest in CP. I know of several other schemes in the 100-200 million scale but they are all stalled due to the recession and the fact theres no money for speculative development for anyone at the moment makes this large investor very intriguing. Anybody know of any £400m developments in South London?

No, but there's Ally Pally in the north, which has crucially just decided not to go for a 'big bang solution'. Because it would be nuts.

Fang, on 14 January 2010 - 04:51 PM, said:

Yes, I'm sorry. I should have made myself clearer. I want to know the name of the commercial/financial backers that have been mentioned but not named, by the advocates of this project. As for claims of an 'overwhelming majority' of locals in support, this is yet another groundless assertion which makes me deeply suspicious of this proposal and those behind it. The fact that these people now appear to be utilising long established local organisations to promote this project is, I believe, indicative of the lack of support The Rebuild The Crystal Palace Campaign secured during its last push.

Thanks for that Queens pud. But I was referring to People and Places Ltd. Ray Halls Architectural Practice, which was named on previous Rebuild The Palace material.

Surely not this one? It's in NI:

Name & Registered Office:
PEOPLE AND PLACES LIMITED
FORTWILLIAM
HILLSBOROUGH
CO DOWN
BT26 6BH
Company No. NI008271

Must be this one, no accounts for ever and now in liquidation:

Name & Registered Office:
PEOPLE AND PLACES ARCHITECTS LTD
5 WALDEN CLOSE
BELVEDERE
KENT
DA17 5HD
Company No. 02370232


Status: Liquidation
Date of Incorporation: 10/04/1989

Country of Origin: United Kingdom
Company Type: Private Limited Company
Nature of Business (SIC(03)):
7420 - Architectural, technical consult
Accounting Reference Date: 31/03
Last Accounts Made Up To: 31/03/2006 (TOTAL EXEMPTION FULL)
Next Accounts Due: 31/01/2008 OVERDUE
Last Return Made Up To: 10/04/2006
Next Return Due: 08/05/2007 OVERDUE

[Fang]

Yes, I suspect it is the second one. FYI;
http://www.thamesgat...judges/ray.aspx

[Axean]

citizen M, on 14 January 2010 - 11:18 AM, said:

Turns out a couple of the Cllrs on the plans sub committee were replaced at the last minute to vote out the first scheme that night and that's where the levels of ignorance re 25CR flowed from. They were only focused on garnering votes from constituents in their part of the borough who were up in arms re Kings Hall Road development, btw that had received only a fraction of the objections 25CR had.

Charlie, the above sounds like a bit of a conspiracy theory.
Did couple of (what I assume were) Conservative Councillor's sneak in to manipulate the planning process and stop housing in a Labour Ward?
And didnt the Councillor for the Ward containing the Kings Hall development speak on behalf of people objecting to the Church?

[charlie]

Hi Axean - I am not sure there is a conspiracy here but I would have to double check the minutes and regular attendees of Plans Sub committee 4 and who actually was there.

Both Cllrs. Sarah Phillips (Conservative) and John Getgood (Labour) were on my understanding long standing replacements for 2 members who gave their apologies for the 17th quite a long time in advance. Cllr. Getgood replaced Cllr. Karen Roberts (Labour)- his colleague in the the Penge and Cator ward. I believe Cllr. Phillips replaced a conservative councillor Jennifer Hillier so it would seem like for like.

If the voting was correct there were only 7 members on the night. Cllr. Dean, Fawthrop. Michael(vice) and Jenkins ( chair) are regulars and all conservatives. Not sure who the other one was - could have only been a liberal democrat or conservative.

Hope that sheds some light.

Indeed it would appear there was no excuse for the "pig ignorance" - as some have described it - of some of the regular members of that committee - Dean, Fawthrop and Michael. Indeed the two most knowledgeable were Cllrs. Phillips and Getgood.

[Helen B]

There were notices being handed out this morning at CP station about the campaign (presumably by some of you!) but it didn't say what we could actually do to register our support and help? I'm a newbie to the area so I'm sure there have been petitions etc but just not sure where these are, and would love to come on board.

[citizen M]

Axean, on 15 January 2010 - 12:09 AM, said:

Charlie, the above sounds like a bit of a conspiracy theory.
Did couple of (what I assume were) Conservative Councillor's sneak in to manipulate the planning process and stop housing in a Labour Ward?
And didnt the Councillor for the Ward containing the Kings Hall development speak on behalf of people objecting to the Church?

The Kings Hall Road application had been written up for approval. When the applicant was notified of the change of Cllrs they were of the opinion the changes were made to prevent that scheme getting through. Whether this was a politically motivated swop (conspiracy) or not would be hard to prove either way but the lack of basic planning law displayed by the 3 deferrers was staggering.

[citizen M]

andreas, on 14 January 2010 - 04:12 PM, said:

Mods - we probably need a new thread for the New Crystal Palace, as lots to discuss...

Probably the most recent statement of the proposals is in the Chamber of Commerce minutes of January 2009:
http://www.norwoodch...anuary-2009.php

As a lot of the detail has yet to be worked out, the Chamber's support was for the proposals in principle.

I may have missed something, but I don't recall Ray Hall having mentioned a multiplex at that meeting or subsequently.

Q When is a multiplex not a multiplex?
A When it's an NCP!

Andreas a multiplex is a large development that contains a range of leisure and retail uses.

Ray's proposals for Multiplex2 are almost identical to the Ian Ritchie designed scheme for multiplex1 however there will be slow food not fast food, an independent cinema not a multi screen, a 5* hotel with 250+ rooms, a conference centre not nightclub, a shopping mall area, an underground not roof top car park for 1,000 vehicles, art galleries, olympic size swimming pool & a climbing wall amongst other activities.

How on earth the Triangle traders have come round to thinking the M2 will increase footfall to their shops and restaurants beats me. Back in the days of the M1 proposal most people where of the opinion the M1 would destroy Triangle trade. Multiplexs are single trip generators ie users remain on site for duration of visit and that is where they spend cash as well as time. How on earth this area could withstand the proposed volume of daily traffic to and from the M2 is beyond me. If the area cannot facilitate the extra 1-200 cars that a KICC service at 25CR would bring how can it then be argued that the same highways can cope with 1,000s of extra car trips per day? I'm referring specifically to highways not parking.

I also urge people to look at Ray's plans for the rest of the park. I'm most concerned to see the Italian terraces will be made into athletics tracks and that the other car parks will be closed forcing all traffic on to the parade, not to mention running a train through it! I wish he'd focus on his local park in Blackheath and leave CPP alone.

Who actually, apart from The Chamber's private membership, supports this M2 proposal?