Crystal Palace Magazine

KICC Pentecostal Church faces action if it breaches Planning Laws says council

Jerry Green — Mon, 14 Nov 2011 18:08:41 +0000

The KICC pentecostal church which has been carrying out major works on a former cinema in Crystal Palace faces enforcement action if it breaches planning laws, says a report to a Bromley council sub-committee.

The report says that if the old cinema at 25 Church Road is brought into an unlawful use then the council can take enforcement action. “But it cannot pre-empt a potentially unlawful use” said the report.

The comments came as a Bromley council plans sub-committee REFUSED all three applications made by the church, Kingsway International Christian Centre.

The applications included:

1. To remove the doors of the cinema building and the canopy above it.

2. To install a billboard on a side wall of the building

3. To provide landscaping and a cycle rack.

“There have been a large number of objections to the three applications and many of these are concerned with the potential use of the building and its implications. The building has been refurbished internally and KICC advised at a meeting with a council officer in March 2011 that it will accommodate various uses including drama, conferences, music associated with the Christian community, income generating activities of a ‘business centre’ nature and community uses. The applicant has since confirmed in writing that the use of the building will fall under Use class D2 (bingo hall/cinema etc)”.

“There remains concern that the use of the building may not fall under Class D2 and to date neither a certificate of lawfulness application nor planning application have not been received regarding the future use. Should the building be brought into an unlawful use then the local planning authority can take the appropriate enforcement action at that stage but it cannot pre-empt a potentially unlawful use”.

The report emphasised that the use of the building was not relevant to the determination of the three new planning applications which it said should be assessed on their planning merits, in particular the impact of the proposals on the character and appearance of the application property and the Crystal Palace Park conservation area.

Cllr John Getgood (Lab. Penge and Cator) said they were guardians for the area. “We would be failing in our duty if we allowed it to be turned over in the way KICC are proposing.” Although the landscaping proposal was being recommended for permission he felt that application should be refused as well. ”It’s very much part of their overall plan. “Not only will we have people using the building it will attract other people to sit and loiter around the entrance” he added.

Cllr Getgood’s motion for refusal was seconded by Cllr Russell Jackson. “Knowing the Triangle as I do i think it’s lovely. “I’d like to see it stay that way.” Annabel Sidney, on behalf of both the Crystal Palace Triangle Planning Group and the Norwood Society, said the proposed alterations would create a frontage more indicative of a car showroom or modern department store.

The report to the sub-committee said nearby residents were notified of the applications and a large number of representations have been received, many featuring duplicated text. A significant proportion of the representations comprised joint objections to all three applications and included general comments which could be summarised as follows:

Errors and misleading statements in application documents / conservation area status conflicts with applicant’s assertion that area has a ‘sharp urban edge’
Applicant has failed to engage with local community / local opinion is being ignored / applicant is attempting to ride roughshod over local community and local planning authority which is politically and morally unacceptable.
Conflicting statements on proposed use of the building / proposed use has not been made clear / impossible to consider how proposals relate to proposed use and are necessary / premature to determine application without clarification of proposed use / no information on hours of operation, numbers of people using building, number of Class D2 events and what those events will be
Proposed use does not have planning permission / internal works carried out and indicated on plans provide a similar layout to previously refused church proposal – these facilities are not consistent with D2 use / applicant’s statements on proposed use are not consistent with a D2 use / D2 use of the building is likely to incorporate D1 uses / applicant publicly stated that it was considering D2 use of building, including concerts
Capacity of building has increased / building can accommodate up to 3,000 people / building will have significant trip generating potential
Sole purpose of purchase of building was relocation of place of worship
The three applications should be considered together given cumulative impact of proposals
Granting permission will effectively validate works carried out to date and indicate acceptance of loss of community use of building / KICC are being allowed to develop building for inappropriate use unhindered
Applicant previously emphasised potential for intensive use of building within existing permitted use and resulting highways and pedestrian impacts
Applicant has history of attracting very large crowds to events in south London, including annual event at Fairfield Halls in Croydon / applicant significantly intensified use of former cinema in Hoe Street, Walthamstow between 2005 and 2009 / harm to area from intensification of use
Previous planning application indicated that visitors would travel from Kent and Surrey
Location of ticket booth immediately adjacent to entrance doors could hamper free movement of crowds into building / internal foyer is of insufficient size to accommodate influx of people arriving for events
Significant size and presence of building / building is landmark / only Art Deco cinema building in the area / unique and unusual to conservation area
Building makes significant contribution to conservation area / harm to character and appearance of conservation area and adjacent conservation areas / harm to architectural integrity and art-deco character of building /building retains key features of original design / contribution of building to area could be significantly enhanced whilst retaining key features /insensitive proposal for painting of building
Previous introduction of uPVC windows, billboards and external canopy fail to reflect grandeur of building
Applicant fails to recognise importance of the building / applicant should have presented expert architectural advice within application
Building has been allowed to fall into further disrepair since applicant purchased it
Building is a heritage asset as defined in planning policy statement 5 (PPS5) / presumption in favour of conservation of heritage assets / local planning authority should not validate application where impact of proposal on heritage assets is not clear from application documents
Remaining art-deco cinema buildings should be protected and conserved / applicant has sensitively restored former cinema building in Walthamstow
Non-religious people will feel excluded from important local landmark / church will add nothing to local community / building should benefit local community / community will be deprived of a valuable resource / local community are united in opposition to KICC proposals / over 3,000 objectors to previous application / in climate of civil unrest it is important to build a sense of community amongst existing residents rather than allow people from outside to take control of an area
Already enough churches in the area
Area needs an entertainment venue / building has long history as entertainment venue / building should provide a cinema / cinema operator is ready and willing to move into building / cinema would provide economic and community benefits / widespread local support for cinema
Town centre is becoming run-down / building is key to social, economic and cultural regeneration of Triangle, particularly Church Road / harm to vitality and vibrancy of town centre
Detrimental impact on highway and pedestrian safety from crowds / increased traffic congestion / increased demand for on-street parking in the surrounding area / significant impact of KICC church services in Walthamstow town centre
Applicant is proposing to relocate its administrative function to the building – office building would be more suitable / numerous derelict churches that applicant could use
Proposals conflict with relevant local, strategic and national policy.

Specific comments on the landscaping application received from nearby residents were summarised as follows: (Application ref. 11/01537)

Unclear why people would want to sit in this area next to busy road rather than nearby green spaces
Increased potential for crime and anti-social behaviour, in particular by providing hiding spaces from where pedestrians / bus stop users could be targeted
KICC events could result in large crowds using landscaped space and spilling onto pavement where people wait for buses, pushing pedestrians out onto busy road
Increased noise and disturbance from use of landscaped space lack of detail regarding maintenance of landscape features
Area will become litter strewn and unsightly unless properly maintained
Proposal is an attempt to woo local authority support
Churchgoers will arrive in cars rather than cycle up hill
Site is too narrow for bicycle parking
Landscaping is poor quality / generic and unimaginative
Poor design / inadequate number of bicycle stands
Overspill of cycle parking will restrict availability of stands nearby / increased
Cycle parking in the area will be detrimental to highway and pedestrian safety

On the a application to change the doors and canopy (11/01541):

No need for elevational alterations
Justification that lobby needs extra natural light seems strange
Unsuitable materials / uPVC windows inappropriate in conservation area / existing uPVC windows are an unauthorised development
Capacity of building has been increased to over 1,000 and proposed doors would appear inappropriate from a crowd safety and management point of view
Replacement of existing entrance doors and location of ticket booth will create bottlenecks and congestion restricting safe movement of large crowds in and out of building / existing doors allow separate entrance and exit routes
Harsh industrial appearance / building will resemble car showroom
Loss of historic significance / elegance / architectural integrity / Art Deco character / original features / horizontal form / symmetry of building
Despite unfortunate alterations building retains key original design features /
Building should be restored to original appearance
Canopy should be retained in same position / raising canopy will result in loss of unique geometric raised stucco surround
Rectangular render architrave which frames door opening is a feature since 1928 and its loss is undesirable
Glazing on lower floor should reflect original design intentions / doors and fanlight windows above canopy have been a feature of building since 1928
Entertainment use does not require large glazed panels and doors to display internal features
Proposed windows reflect poor and out of character alterations made by previous owners
Signage is out of character with building and conservation area

Billboard application (ref. 11/01663)

Insufficient details of materials and colours of billboard and advertisements
Elevation drawings misrepresent roof structure to support applicant’s
assertions regarding character of building and surrounding area
The billboard will reverse council’s previous success in removing advertisements along Church Road
The visual impact, particularly upon residents living opposite / street clutter
The billboard is large, prominent and unnecessary
The scale and location of hoarding inappropriate for a residential and conservation area out of character with host building, dangerous distraction to motorists
The hoarding will be used for religious advertisements which is not consistent with use of the building religious advertisements are often bright and garish
Crystal Palace Park Conservation Area Supplementary Planning Guidance (CPPSPG) states that advertisements requiring consent will be restricted to properties that depend on advertising to carry out their business – applicant has failed to explain nature of business and use of building
The applicant has not explained why it cannot advertise its business more sensitively in accordance with CPPSPG
The applicant has not indicated whether purpose of hoarding is to obtain revenue from third party advertising and why this is necessary for charity with revenues exceeding £12 million per annum
‘The Open Door’ signage relates to a charity and not the applicant’s business at the premises and is therefore contrary to CPPSPG harmful to the conservation area.

BACKGROUND NOTE: The report to the sub-committee records that planning permission was refused in December 2009 under application ref. 09/02202 for change of use from bingo hall (Class D2) to church/ community use (Class D1) together with ancillary offices, cafe and bookshop on the following grounds:

“The proposed development, involving the loss of an important entertainment/leisure use within Use Class D2 and the introduction of a a reduction in the range of facilities provided within the town centre detrimental to the proper functioning of the daytime and evening economy and harmful to the social, cultural and economic characteristics of the area, thereby contrary to Policies 3A.18, 3D.1 and 4B.8 of the London Plan.

“The nature of the activity associated with a class D1 use such as a place of worship and the scale of the user means that they are likely to have a wide catchment for its congregation and attract a large number of cars and as a result the development will have a significant adverse impact on the surrounding area in terms of parking demand and pedestrian safety, contrary to Policy T18 of the Unitary Development Plan.”

Background to Croydon’s ‘takeover’ of Upper Norwood Library

Jerry Green — Wed, 09 Nov 2011 15:54:09 +0000

The background to the row is over who sits on the Upper Norwood library joint committee. The agreement states that there should be four councillors from each council.

In February 2006 the library joint committee adopted a resolution that it should consist of at least two members from each side who represent the Upper Norwood area and at least one should have some executive responsibility for libraries.

The reports were would be presented to Croydon’s cabinet on March 13th 2006 and initially to Lambeth’s executive on February 13 2006 and then to Lambeth’s full council meeting of February 22 2006.

Lambeth agreed to the decision at the full council, Croydon agreed the decision under delegated powers. This is recorded in the joint committee minutes of the meeting held in March 2006.

As Mr Anderson’s letter states: “Both authorities subsequently demonstrated compliance with this agreed amendment to the agreement, Croydon having nominated two Conservative councillors from the Upper Norwood area.”

But when the Conservatives lost all their seats in the area in the 2010 elections they threw their toys out of the pram and decided to ‘install’ four cabinet members from the south of the borough onto the committee instead.

In his letter Mr Anderson says that “without providing any formal notification to Lambeth of its intentions, your authority unilaterally decided it no longer wished to comply with the agreed amendment and failed to nominate any representatives from the Upper Norwood area.”

That led to last year’s annual meeting of the library committee ending in complete chaos – and this year’s not even taking place after Lambeth’s four nominated councillors did not turn up.

The meeting was due to have been held in the library – where Croydon’s cabinet member for culture Cllr Sarah ‘Book Token’ Bashford told people attending the meeting they would wait for 10 minutes for the Lambeth councillors.

I understand that Lambeth had advised Croydon their four councillors would not be attending the meeting some time before the day of the meeting. If that is so it begs the question: Why, as cabinet member for culture, wasn’t Cllr Bashford told this by whoever it was Lambeth spoke to at Croydon?

Croydon’s Actions over Library :’Wrong in Law’ say Lambeth

Jerry Green — Tue, 08 Nov 2011 20:17:48 +0000

Croydon Council’s ‘takeover’ of Upper Norwood joint library has been slammed as “not only unreasonable but wrong in law” by the boss of Lambeth council.

In a seven-page letter to Croydon, Lambeth’s chief executive Derrick Anderson CBE challenges Croydon to set out its legal position

The letter confirms what many people have suspected – that Croydon and Lambeth have been given totally different sets of legal advice about who can sit on the library’s joint committee.

It also reveals:

*Informal discussions were held between Croydon and Lambeth in the wake of last year’s chaotic annual meeting of the library committee;

*That Croydon have said they will send a valuer into the library on Westow Hill – which Lambeth say is a clear breach of the agreement;

*that Lambeth takes issue with Croydon’s claim that the joint library agreement is invalid in the event of one party committing a fundamental breach of the agreement. The letter tells Croydon it is incumbent upon them to identify which term or terms of the agreement Croydon allege have been broken by Lambeth. “You have failed to do so” says Mr Anderson

In his letter to Croydon chief executive Jon Rouse, Mr Anderson says: “This inaction in itself constitutes a breach of the agreement on the part of your authority.

“It lends further weight to the inevitable conclusion that your authority decided some time ago that it did not want to continue with the long-established joint committee.

“Your authority has been fully aware for some time of the crucial need to address the membership issue. “I was extremely disappointed that, whilst no reference whatsoever is made to this in your letter, the press release issued by Croydon on the same day (as Croydon announced the library ’takeover’) says:”Lambeth also continues to insist on Croydon putting local councillors onto the committee, despite the fact that the council is advised that this would be illegal under current government legislation concerning executive committee structures.”

Mr Anderson adds: “Having sought such legal advice, any authority acting reasonably in the spirit of partnership and in the interests of the joint committee and service users would have communicated this to its partner authority, not least so an opportunity would have been provided to consider this without jeopardising the very existence of the joint committee.

“For the record, Lambeth council does not accept that this is the position in law and therefore invites your authority to set out its legal position, having regard to the provisions of The Local Authorities (Arrangements for the Discharge of Functions) (England) Regulations 2000, which are reflected in the constitutions of both Croydon and Lambeth councils. “In summary:

“1: Where the functions to be discharged by a joint committee are all executive functions (as with the UNJL) then it is for the Leader to make the appointments to the joint committee;

“2: Subject to certain exceptions (see 3 below) all such appointments must be members of the executive and the political balance requirements do not apply;

“3: One of the exceptions is where the joint committee has executive functions in respect of only part of the area of one of the authorities concerned and that the area does not exceed two-fifths of the total area of the authority (as in the case of the UNJL). In that case the appointments to the joint committee may include members for wards which are wholly or partly within that part of the authority’s area.

“Again the political balance requirements do not apply and it remains the leader’s responsibility to make the appointments.

“Given that, as stated above, your authority was content to nominate two local ward councillors to the joint committee for the four-year period between 2006 and 2010, it presumably satisfied itself that this was lawful.

“This therefore begs the question as to why your authority now states that this would be illegal, hence my request above.”

Summing up Mr Anderson says Lambeth is satisfied the actions taken by Croydon are “not only unreasonable but wrong in law” – and it follows from this that Lambeth “does not necessarily accept” that the joint committee is “dissolved forthwith.”

In closing. Mr Anderson says Lambeth would only invoke an arbitration clause which is part of the joint library agreement as an action of last resort.

“I do, of course, sincerely trust that no such action will prove necessary and that a sensible way forward can be agreed.”

Lambeth gave Croydon seven days to respond to its letter of October 27th – the same amount of time which Croydon gave Lambeth to respond to their letter of October 21st.

Crystal Palace locals spruce up Westow Park

Chris Thomas — Tue, 08 Nov 2011 19:43:45 +0000

Locals planting bulbs in Westow Park: Sofia de Oliveira, Chana de Oliveira, James Alexander and Paul Church. By: Will Baker

Volunteers came together on Sunday (6th November 2011) to plant 1,500 wildlife bulbs and five mature trees in Westow Park, Crystal Palace.

Five alders and one foxglove tree were planted in the playground to provide shade and autumn/winter colour. The foxglove tree is a fast-growing variety so it is hoped will provide some shade to the picnic area in the Westow Park within the next few years. The alders will have attractive catkins in spring and turn a beautiful golden colour in the autumn, adding all-year interest as well as shade to the children’s play area.

Wildlife bulbs – including native bluebells, wild garlic, wood anemones and snowdrops – will provide colour and interest at two of the main park entrances in the spring.

The Autumn Mega Work Day followed on from a similar event in the spring when more than 70 people came from all over Croydon to plant a wildlife hedge of 350 trees.

Celia Davis, from the Friends of Westow Park, who organised both work days said: “This time we’re brightening up the Church Road entrance and filling the wooded area near College Green with a wealth of native bulbs, adding to the daffodils that are already there.”

Local mum, Anna Orchard of Fitzroy Gardens said: “Events like this really bring the community together. It’s a chance to do something for the local environment and meet new people at the same time.”

Since the Friends of Westow Park was set up in January 2009, it has been very busy. It has won over £120,000 of funding, most of which has been used to refurbish the much used but rundown playground. New play equipment was added this summer, with additional climbing facilities for older children, balancing bars and a picnic area installed outside the playground.

Local dad, James Murray said he brings his children to the new playground a lot. “I think it’s very good. I’m impressed that they’ve chosen to invest in such high quality equipment.”

Friends of Westow Park have also invested in the biodiversity of the park, planting more than 400 hedge trees, bulbs and building bug towers to attract stag beetles and other wildlife back to the park.

More recently, Westow Park hosted the highly successful Crystal Palace Overground Festival in August and has recently been awarded £2,200 to set up a boules court from Croydon Council’s Small Grants Fund.

Alex de Rementeria of Wakefield Gardens said: “The park looks lovely and knowing the community is behind it lifts your spirits.”

The Great Crystal Palace Fire of 1936

Chris Thomas — Sun, 06 Nov 2011 22:32:43 +0000

To commemorate the 75th anniversary of the destruction of the Crystal Palace by fire on the 30th November 1936, the Crystal Palace Museum will be presenting a special large screen showing of dramatic images of the 1936 fire. This will be shown all day during the normal museum’s winter opening times (11am – 3.00pm) on Saturday and Sunday 26th and 27th November and the following weekend Saturday and Sunday 3rd and 4th December.

Admission is free and as always the museum staff will be happy to answer any questions that may arise from the viewing of this unique compilation.

For further details contact the Crystal Palace Museum, Anerley Hill, Crystal Palace, SE19 2BA, Tel: 020 8676 0700 Email: info@crystalpalacemuseum.org.uk

Croydon tear up Library Agreement: ‘Staff not told in Advance’

Jerry Green — Sat, 22 Oct 2011 11:55:46 +0000

The news came in a shock announcement from Croydon council’s press office which stated: ”Croydon council has terminated its joint library agreement with Lambeth council in respect of the Upper Norwood Library after nearly two years of failure to get co-operation from the neighbouring borough.”

Now Lambeth council – which says Croydon’s move has come without any prior warning even to the library staff – have today formally asked Croydon to reconsider their deccision. In a council statement Cllr Florence Nosegbe, Lambeth’s cabinet member for culture,said: ”We are seeking urgent meetings to clarify their position”

Croydon gave Lambeth just seven days to respond to their decision – even though the agreement supposedly says each council must give at least a year’s notice of their decison to terminate the agreement.

Croydon’s move is bound to cause absolute uproar in the area.

The Croydon statement added:

“Following a decision by the leader of Croydon council (Cllr Mike Fisher), the borough’s chief executive has written to his counterpart in Lambeth, clearly setting out that this decision is due to Lambeth’s fundamental breach of the terms of the agreement.

“This breach has been caused by Lambeth refusing to attend the last annual general meeting and failing to co-operate at the 2010 meeting. “This means that there has been no effective oversight of the management of the library for almost two years, including no effective oversight of financial management and staffing issues.

“Lambeth also continues to insist on Croydon putting local councillors onto the committee, despite the fact that the council is advised that this would be illegal under current government legislation concerning executive committee structures.

“Croydon will ensure that the library remains open for the time being while two councils decide what happens next. “The library is in Lambeth so as statutory authority, “Lambeth first need to decide whether they want to take it on as part of their library service.

“While funds remain available in the account that was previously funded by the joint committee agreement Croydon has committed to continue to employ the staff and ensure proper financial management.

“Now that the agreement has been terminated, Croydon has asked Lambeth to respond within the next seven days with any specific proposals that they might have for the library’s future.

“Councillor Sara Bashford, cabinet member for customer services, culture and sport, said: “We have asked Lambeth to respond to us with their view on the way forward in the next seven days “We have a responsibility to our residents to spend their money prudently and within the letter of the law, and with Lambeth boycotting its management role this is impossible.”

Croydon’s press release then ends: “However in the meantime Croydon has taken on the responsibility for properly managing the affairs of the library.”

Shortly after 11 am this morning two Croydon officers were present in the library.

Cllr Nosegbe’s prepared statement said:

“We want to continue to work in partnership with Croydon to deliver local services for local people. “We have made our financial contribution for this year and expect to see the service continue.

“It goes without saying that we are extremely disappointed that Croydon have attempted to dissolve this partnership which has come without prior warning or consultation with us as partners, or with local residents and staff. “Their public statement today can only serve to threaten the future of the library.

“Lambeth remains committed to the Upper Norwood Joint Library and keeping our side of the arrangement. “We are today formally asking Croydon to reconsider their decision, and are seeking urgent meetings to clarify their position.”

*Tessa Jowell. MP for Dulwich and West Norwood, and in whose constituency the library sits, said: “This is devestating news for the Upper Norwood Library. “Like the local community I am shocked and angered by their plan to rip the heart out of the area by closing this much loved library that has been jointly funded for over 100 years. “I cannot understand the reasons that Croydon have given and I do hope that they will see sense and think again” she added.

Croydon North MP Malcolm Wicks said: “Croydon Council’s unilateral action poses a grave threat to the iconic Upper Norwood Library which is much loved and used in the community. “It would be tragic if brinkmanship between two councils leads to the loss of the library.”

Lambeth Councillor Matthew Bennett (Lab. Gipsy Hill) said: “It’s like a coup. “Staff were only advised this morning by letter so Croydon have been planning this for some time.” Cllr Bennett and his colleagues will bve distributing 1,000 leaflets to homes close to the library and in Gipsy Hill ward, including Central Hill estate, tomorrow (Saturday) about today’s events.

Crystal Palace Community Association chairman John Payne said: “This is a very complex situation and the CPCA is taking advice. “We will be making a statement in due course.”

Infighting amongst Palace Groups changes Park Board Plans

Jerry Green — Sat, 22 Oct 2011 11:48:39 +0000

“There will have to be compromise among all parties” – Bromley council leader

Community representation on the planned management board for Crystal Palace park will be limited to just one person.

Bromley council’s executive committee decided on the move at its meeting last night (Wednesday) amid concerns of ‘infighting’ and local groups ‘jockeying for position’ being expressed by councillors.

And representation on the stakeholder group could be limited to just three representatives of yet-to-be-named local organisations with the five other places being filled by the wider community – a move which is bound to cause uproar among local groups who miss out. And that could lead to a rush of people from groups which miss out applying for those five places.

Bromley council have already said people applying for positions on the stakeholder group must broadly support the Masterplan for the park.

Addressing the executive, Cllr John Getgood (Lab. Penge and Cator ward) said: “I just see it being slowed down by having too many disparate views round the table and I am worried

“Within the groups in Crystal Palace there’s already an amount of infighting as to who will be and who won’t be involved. “If we get a community stakeholder group from themselves, they will appoint a chairman who has an ex-officio role on the board.

“It doesn’t matter how many community representatives you put on the board you’re going to get that different number of views. “The executive board needs to be more executive”.

Discussion within the community should take place within the stakeholder group, said Cllr Getgood.

“It’s going to be quite difficult to set up but that doesn’t mean we should go ahead and try and set them up. “People with an interest in how the park should go forward should be able to make their representations to the board but not necessarily be part of it.

“This does seem to be the best way forward and to do something positive for the park.”

Income from the park should be used for the park and ‘ring-fenced’ he added. He expressed concern at the inclusion of Capel Manor College on the grounds of conflict of interest on the main board.

Cllr Getgood’s views were supported by Bromley’s deputy council leader Cllr Colin Smith who highlighted the local Virtual Norwood blog.

“You can already see the tension building up. “Individual groups are jockeying for position” said Cllr Smith, who is portfolio holder for environment.

“It needs to be a doing body not a great debating point among disparate groups trying to get their own point across.”

Council leader Cllr Stephen Carr said he was not minded to ignore anyone’s views . “That approach has to be shared by individuals as well as groups and there has to be some compromise if we are ever going to get anywhere. “The Mayor of London is going to want to see a board that’s pulling together in the best interests of the community.

“Vocal minority groups are not going to help that matter. “We’ve got to have a common cause and go out and get funding. “It’s pointless if people think: ‘We’re going to get where we want to go’. “There will have to be compromise by all parties.”

Marc Hume said the stakeholder group should include three of the organisations listed* along with five representatives of the community they would be seeking to appoint after the posts were advertised.. “It’s a bit of a moving feast but that’s the closest we’ve got to it.”

Reports to committees were based on officers’ views that unless the council took some serious determined action to successfully develop the park going forward the alternative would lead to the park continuing to decline and any opportunity to secure the necessary investment would be lost.

A not for profit organisation who would be tasked with managing the group would be the best way of securing external funding. In practical terms the tasks of the management board would be to clean up, tidy up and restore the park.

They had the support of the Eden Project, the Greater London Authority, Capel Manor College and “pretty much” of all the local community organisations who have an interest in the park. “The timetable is quite ambitious but we believe it would need to be ambitious.”

The executive agreed to reduce the number of community representatives on the board from two to one and increase local ward councillor representation on the board from one to two people.

Earlier. answering questions from Crystal Palace Campaign chairman Ray Sacks, Bromley council leader Cllr Stephen Carr said that if the board was not approved the council would continue to manage the park as well as continuing the existing stakeholder group to explore funding streams.

* The existing Community Stakeholders are: Friends of Crystal Palace Park; Crystal Palace Working Party; Crystal Palace Triangle Planning Group; Crystal Palace Foundation;

Crystal Palace Community Association; Crystal Palace Campaign; Crystal Palace Museum Trust; Norwood Society;

Sydenham Society; Dulwich Society; Crystal Palace Chamber of Commerce; Lambethans’ Society; West Beckenham Residents Association and Friends of Penge Parks

NOTE: The Crystal Palace park management board would be responsible for making recommendations to Bromley council’s executive committee which will determine the future management of the park. This will place an emphasis on:

● Restoring and protecting the park’s heritage and infrastructure

● Improving and developing community use and investment in the park

● Recognising the park’s local, regional and national significance

● Determining and securing the park’s importance for the future.

Board members would all work towards the following aims:

● To examine and agree a legal structure for the future management of Crystal Palace

park .

● To challenge the Lee Valley Regional Park Act 1966 in collaboration with neighbouring

boroughs to obtain agreement to reinvest Bromley’s funds into Crystal Palace park.

● To approve and champion capital and revenue projects that improve the usage and

visitor experience at Crystal Palace park.

● To examine and pioneer different opportunities for investment at Crystal Palace park.

● To work closely with the Mayor of London to:

◦Explore a regional status for Crystal Palace park

◦Enter into discussions with the National Trust, English Heritage and other industry sectors about the future governance of Crystal Palace park .

● Develop employment and skills opportunities at Crystal Palace park.

The board would be subject to monitoring and evaluation by the London Borough of Bromley.

The recommended membership for the Executive Project Board includes representatives from: Bromley (councillors); Greater London Authority (senior representation); The Eden Project; English Heritage; Capel Manor College; National Sports Centre; Community representative and London borough of Bromley project team.

Library Meeting Ends in Chaos – Again!

Chris Thomas — Wed, 12 Oct 2011 14:16:40 +0000

The Annual meeting of Upper Norwood library joint committee ended in chaos again on Thursday 15th September – after Lambeth councillors boycotted it.

Croydon’s four Conservative Cabinet nominees had all turned up for the meeting in the library on Westow Hill.

But when Croydon’s culture chairman Cllr Sarah Bashford told more than 60 people who had turned up they would wait ten minutes for the four Lambeth councillors, Crystal Palace Comunity Association chairman John Payne told her he had received an e-mail that afternoon saying they (Lambeth) would not be attending.

After the committee meeting was abandoned because it was ‘not quorate’ and the Croydon councillors and two officers had left, a second informal meeting followed – where people were told that Lambeth councillors had boycotted the meeting on the grounds that any decision taken would have been open to a legal challenge in the courts.

At the cente of the dispute is a committee decision taken in 2006 which agreed that two local ward councillors from Croydon and Lambeth should sit on the eight-strong committee. (see below).

The meeting heard that John Payne, a library campaign committee member, fellow CPCA committee member Mike Warwick and library campaign secretary Pam Gray, had taken professional advice.

They had been told that if the meeting had proceeded on the basis of having four Croydon councillors, none of whom represented local wards, sitting on it then any decision would have been unlawful and any meeting would not be properly constituted and any decision/s taken would be unlawful and subject to legal challenge.

Solomon Agutu, described by Cllr Bashford as Croydon’s legal adviser, had earlier said: “This is a legal agreement and Mike Fisher( Croydon council leader) has responded to a lot of questions about the issue in detail.

“It’s important that people who wish to challenge the legality of the agreement should do it in the right place and no here. “It’s incumbent upon them to raise it through the courts. “This meeting is not designed to give legal guidance. “For that reason I’d prefer not to discuss the legalities.” (Mr Agutu left along with the Croydon councillors)

Mr Payne told the informal meeting: “What we have seen tonight is a travesty for those people who value this library.”

One angry lady who left as the committee meeting was abandoned told councillors. “I didn’t realise the political debate I’d be getting myself into. “I can’t believe I’m wasting my time listening to it.”

The mother-of-two, who declined to give her name, told me: “I came to support the library.”

“Money gets wasted on corporate spend” – library campaign chairman

However, Upper Norwood library is about 40 per cent cheaper to run than any other library, Joe Figuero – chairman of the library campaign – told the informal meeting.

“If they followed the model for this library around the country they would not have to get rid of librarians. “They would have lots of books on their shelves.

“Money gets wasted on corporate spend. “This library is not liked. “It’s an example where you can protect libraries, can protect services.

“In this library every single member of staff meets the public.”

Mr Figuero’s comments came after a report which would have been considered by councillors revealed that Upper Norwood joint library costs far less to run on average than any library in either Lambeth or Croydon boroughs:

1: Inclusive average net cost per site:
Upper Norwood: £397,483
Croydon: £628,442 per site (13 sites)
Lambeth: £647,664 per site (11 sites)

2: Inclusive cost per issue:
Upper Norwood: £2.96
Croydon: £5.94
Lambeth: £8.83

3: Inclusive cost per visit:
Upper Norwood £2.28
Croydon: £4.00
Lambeth: 5.56

4: Net cost per 1,000 residents excluding capital charges:
Upper Norwood: £12,640
Croydon: £23,832*
Lambeth: £25,147*
(*These figures include the Croydon and Lambeth residents who are served by the joint library)

Pam Gray told the informal meeting that on a number-crunching issue Lambeth could save all the money they needed to by using the Upper Norwood model in Lambeth.

“I suspect it’s led by officers and they haven’t got the guts to do that” she added.

Pam Gray emphasised that Lambeth have been very supportive of Upper Norwood library and that there are people in Lambeth who recognise how valuable the library is.”.

Management Board planned for Crystal Palace Park

Jerry Green — Sat, 01 Oct 2011 13:56:22 +0000

Major plans to create a management board for Crystal Palace park are being drawn up by Bromley council.

If the plans are approved then the board, which would include representatives of Capel Manor College, the Eden Project and the Crystal Palace community, would be asked to make recommendations to Bromley council’s executive which will determine the future management of Crystal Palace Park.

The group would be asked to make recommendations which would place an emphasis on:
●    Restoring and protecting the park’s heritage and infrastructure
●    Improving and developing community use and investment in the park
●    Recognising the park’s local, regional and national significance
●    Determining and securing the park’s importance for the future.

“The Board will be established to explore opportunities for the management, restoration, development and protection of Crystal Palace Park; recognising the site’s multi-faceted historical significance and creating an environment which is valued and admired by local people and visitors alike” says a report to committees.

The report says members of the proposed board should all work towards a variety of aims including:

examining and agreeing a legal structure for the future management of the park .
approving and championing capital and revenue projects that improve the park’s usage and visitor experience at the park.
examining and pioneering different opportunities for investment in the park.
working closely with the Mayor of London to:

explore a regional status for the park and
enter into discussions with the National Trust, English Heritage and other industry sectors about the future governance of the
park developing employment and skills opportunities in the park.
Investigating alternative options for the future governance of the park
Exploring a ‘not-for-profit’ organisation governance option for the park
Pursuing discussions with established organisations who have the experience and capability of managing green spaces, such as the National Trust and English Heritage.

The report is being considered at Bromley council’s environment PDS* committee on October 4th; its renewal and recreation PDS* on October 11th and Executive committee on October 19th.
*PDS: pre-decision scrutiny
The total cost of implementing the controversial Masterplan for Crystal Palace park could be nearly TWICE the £68 million figure originally quoted, Bromley council have admitted.

It was estimated that the receipts from the sale of the two planned residential sites would be in the region of £12.8M, but this estimate was prior to the recession.

Bromley has not been able to guarantee the level of investment required given the park’s status as a national asset. In the current economic climate where there are competing priorities on local authority funding, this is unlikely to improve, the report admits.

This report recognises that Crystal Palace Park requires significant financial investment to its infrastructure to ensure that it can be enjoyed by generations to come.

A new community stakeholder group would be formed with appointed community representatives – who would be interviewed for the positions.

The officers’ report says it is suggested “that all community representatives including a newly recruited community stakeholder group be recruited through advertisements placed in local and national newspapers and a formal interview process to ensure that the community is fairly and appropriately represented.

“These opportunities will be proactively promoted to all existing community interest groups and to all other local residents in and around the area.”

It suggests Community Links, an east London-based charity which runs a wide range of community projects involving around 30,000 people every year, could be involved in the recruitment process “to demonstrate transparency”.

The report says officers have met with a number of community groups to discuss the Crystal Palace park management board and future management options for the park.
The majority of those consulted have been in favour of exploring next steps. One group would like to increase the community representation on the Crystal Palace park executive board from two members to four.
The existing Community Stakeholders are: Friends of Crystal Palace Park; Crystal Palace Working Party; Crystal Palace Triangle Planning Group; Crystal Palace Foundation;

Crystal Palace Community Association; Crystal Palace Campaign; Crystal Palace Museum Trust; Norwood Society;

Sydenham Society; Dulwich Society; Crystal Palace Chamber of Commerce; Lambethans’ Society; West Beckenham Residents Association and Friends of Penge Parks

Sparrowhawk nests in Holly Bush

Jerry Green — Tue, 27 Sep 2011 12:09:35 +0000

BACK IN 1851 when the building which became known as the Crystal Palace was first put up, it enclosed elm trees in Hyde Park – and the sparrows which nested there.

A perplexed Queen Victoria asked the Duke of Wellington what should be done about the sparrows.

“Sparrowhawks, Ma’am” was the terse reply.

And that’s how the former Holly Bush pub on the corner of Westow Street and Westow Hill has acquired its new name – coupled with the possibility that sparrowhawks are nesting not too far away.

The new owners are husband and wife team Danielle and Jamie Mason - backed by chef Robin Priestley who was previously head chef at Brinkley’s Wine Factory in Notting Hill.

Danielle and Jamie, who live in Wandsworth, originally came up to Crystal Palace because they had seen The Alma on Church Road was up for sale.

“We didn’t know Crystal Palace that well” says Danielle. “Then we did a lot of market research, going into the local pubs and restaurants and loved the villagey feel to it.

“Our friends were saying ‘You’re opening a pub in Crystal Palace?’. “I don’t think people knew a lot about Crystal Palace and their views were quite outdated. “But we’re thrilled to be here and it was definitely the right move for us.

“And all of our friends who have been here since have loved it. “We’ve changed their minds on Crystal Palace – and we’ll probably be residents ourselves soon enough.”

They prefer to call The Sparrowhawk, which has had a complete refit, a food-led pub rather than a gastro pub. The Sparrowhawk serves bar snacks which change daily but can include home-made scotch eggs, home-made sausage rolls and home made pork scratchings.

A typical menu can include cauliflower soup, deep fried goats cheese or half a pint of prawns among its starters, spiced lamb stews, chicken Kiev or home made burger as the main course and chocolate espresso tart Good Taste cheese and biscuits with onion marmalade among its puddings. And there are roast dinners on Sundays.

See the Sparrowhawk’s facebook page