- John Payne being interviewed outside the Royal Courts of Justice during one of the Crystal Palace Campaign’s frequent visits
The Crystal Palace Campaign was formed to take on a planned £56 million development would include a 20-screen cinema, nine restaurants and a nightclub.
It was an innocent-looking planning application, which someone has since described as looking like it was about tennis courts. On April 16 1997 London and Regional Properties applied to Bromley council for outline planning permission for “the development of leisure and recreational facilities, car park deck and association (sic) ramps and surface car parking at the site of the former Crystal Palace, Crystal Palace Parade.” It would lead to mass demonstrations, the occupation of the site by eco-warriors, several court cases and a three-day long licensing justices hearing.
It would have destroyed 12 acres of green space and wildlife habitat, and would have stretched from near to the fence which is next to the TV tower all the way along to the back of the bus terminus, stopping just a little short of the headless statue (if it hasn’t been stolen). It would have been open for up to 19 hours a day. On February 13 1997, Bromley council organised a seminar entitled ‘Community involvement in Restoring the Vision: establishing the community forum’ with a salmon en croute and wine lunch at Bromley civic centre. The invitation was dated January 27. The Crystal Palace Triangle Community Association (CPTCA) received theirs by fax just three days before the event. Somebody, it appears, had told Bromley council it would be unwise to exclude community groups, which operate in the Upper Norwood area of Crystal Palace. Sue Nagle, an Upper Norwood resident, was among those who also attended the seminar – uninvited. After the lunch the event was split into three workshops. Sue and the CPTCA’s Ken Lewington found their workshop being chaired by the council’s chief executive Michael Blanch.
“As a consultation exercise went it was extremely good,” recalls Sue Nagle.“All the others thought they were putting together a consultation package to see what people wanted in the park. I remember asking what wasn’t set in stone. The other people were astonished. The attitude was that if Bromley had already decided to put the building there then what were we talking about? Blanch was going on about 42 other projects we could tweak. I didn’t have the guts to ask him straight out why we were discussing something that was already decided,” she recalls ruefully. Ken Lewington’s reactions appeared in the next CPTCA newsletter.
“Why was the Government Office for London told in September 1996 the forum had been established when, five months later, it was still not in existence? Why was the GOL told the forum had been formed from a number of meetings held with voluntary organisations, amenity societies and others when no such meetings had taken place? Could it have been because the chief executive’s report to the council’s policy and resources committee of January 15 stated: ‘Initially, we will need to limit the forum both geographically and in membership. I believe the forum….should initially be confined to our own wards’,” he asked.
At a party at the Dulwich home of Liz Rolfe, Ken and Sue met to discuss setting up some form of opposition to the proposed multiplex. “I don’t think we even had a name then” he says. In May Bromley council organised a meeting about the proposals at Anerley town hall. He circulated 600 leaflets about the meeting around the area. Between 200 and 300 people turned up.
“It was turmoil” he recalls. “It was not set up for so many people to attend. It was standing room only. When we were told we could only ask ‘legitimate questions’ people on the floor became quite vociferous and very animated.”
At the meeting he said the level of consultation had been entirely inadequate. “They have presented us with a fait accompli. There has never been a stage at which they have said ‘what would you like to see on the site?’ Many people would like to see art galleries, museums and a planetarium – but there has never been an opportunity to discuss these ideas.”
Bromley council’s leisure and community services marketing manager Brian Turpin said the private leisure development was the key to other developments the council was hoping to bring to the area. If the development did not proceed they would lose the other projects. People had come up with various suggestions for the site such as a conference centre, library or theatre but there had never been any commercial interest in those uses. Things like museums and art galleries did not attract private funding and had to run on a subsidy. There had been an act of Parliament to have a commercial development on the top site, declared Mr Turpin.
The meeting was sent up in glorious style in a lengthy article by Doug Brooks in ‘The Wood Warbler’, the Spring 1997 newsletter of the Friends of the Great North Wood reprinted in the supplement to the CPTCA’s June/July 1997 newsletter. (Example: “The council responded by saying they had carried out an ecological impact analysis on their plans for the park. They were unable to say what this meant.”)
For Wednesday July 16 the Crystal Palace Campaign called a meeting at the Queens hotel, Church Road. The leaflet announcing the meeting called for action to be taken before it was too late. The 600-seat Balmoral suite was full to capacity. Organisers had to turn people away.
In August deputy prime minister John Prescott announced he would examine the plans for the multiplex – but the following March he dashed protesters’ hopes by saying he would not block the decision.
A Bromley council spokesman said Mr Prescott had decided that from a planning and strategic point of view he had no objections. It was reported the ‘new park’ would attract more than four million visitors a year – 1.3 million more than Alton Towers. In the early hours of April 2 1998 eco-warriors moved onto the top site and set up camp. The Big Willow eco-village was here. On April 29, the Crystal Palace Campaign staged a second public meeting at the Queens hotel by which time Philip Kolvin had become chairman. He told the meeting he needed £25,000 in cash and pledges in 5 days in order to fight for their park in court. He had his money in 50 minutes.
In August 1988 the Crystal Palace Campaign failed in the High Court, Mr Justice Sullivan ruled that the planned development was not contrary to the requirements of the Crystal Palace Act. The legislation said any building should reflect the architectural style of the original Crystal Palace. Ken Lewington said the original Palace did not have a car park on its roof and vehicle ramps at the front. Bromley’s Walter Million said the council had always been confident it had acted properly and legally and the Crystal Palace Campaign challenge was ill-conceived.
“We hope that the protesters will accept the decision of the High Court and leave without further legal action being necessary by the council.” Some hope! In August Bromley council issued summonses against a list of named people which “indicated they were on council land without permission”. These included Ken Lewington who had visited the site with a London Evening Standard reporter and 77-year-old Mrs Joan Yaxley, mother of Sue Nagle, who had taken a bread pudding up for the eco-warriors. Bromley council said that when they first occupied the site, the protesters had refused to give their names to one of their officers and said they could get them from the newspapers. The people summonsed included some who had been named in the Croydon Advertiser but not, curiously enough, Cllr Pat Ryan, Croydon’s deputy mayor whose visit to the site had been reported in the same paper in April.
In September three High Court judges agreed the plans should go to a hearing. Campaigners hugged themselves in delight. Council chiefs and LRP bosses hurried off stony faced. Later the same month the council got their eviction order. Bromley council’s joint leader Chris Maines (Lib Dem) declared the illegal occupants “clearly have no local support.”
At around the same time Sue Nagle and others formed a breakaway group called Crystal Palace Protest.
“The Crystal Palace Campaign would not entertain the idea of the activists. If the activists had not come in there would have been no campaign and no site for them to campaign about. It would have been too, too late. There came a point where we realised democracy wasn’t going to work – and wasn’t working. You then have to think what the next stage is. We knew legal proceedings would have been no good because the building would have gone ahead. You could have 20 judicial reviews, 15 public inquiries and it would still have gone ahead.”
In December the Crystal Palace Campaign was at the appeal court launching its case for a judicial review of the proposed multiplex. After a two-day hearing the three appeal judges ruled in Bromley’s favour. Lord Justice Ian Glidewell said that to reflect the style and spirit of a building, as defined by the Crystal Palace Act, its architectural design did not have to be identical with the original.
After the hearing Philip Kolvin said this ‘unusual’ interpretation meant buildings such as Stansted airport and Waterloo International rail station would comply with the Act.
Chris Maines declared: “It is a victory for the majority of local residents that always supported the scheme. (You will begin to see a theme developing here).
“Now we are free from any further legal restrictions and can go ahead with a scheme that will bring a lot of jobs to the area.” Bromley’s chief executive Michael Blanch added: “The Crystal Palace Campaign must now accept this ruling and enable the majority of the community, who have not opposed the regeneration project, to realise the benefits.”
February 1999: “The tree houses are built, the tunnels are dug and the small community is already on eviction alert,” reported Anna Minton in the Estates Gazette. “And while it was the eco-warriors who would attract the lion’s share of publicity in the coming months, it was the Crystal Palace Campaign, which had already delayed the scheme by 18 months and cost LRP more than £1 million, that was sending a warning light to an industry hoping to follow government direction and develop on city sites.” Jim O’Donnell, project manager for LRP, who expects to build even as “litigation continues….”
The scheme was supposed to have been completed by March 2000. Mr O’Donnell hoped to be on site by September, presuming the council evictions went according to plan. He also accepted there was a risk the Campaign would succeed. March 30 and Bromley council’s development control committee was due to decide on two planning applications – one the detailed application for the proposed multiplex, the other to re-landscape much of the rest of the park. The operative word here is ‘was’. Hours before the meeting was due to begin local community groups were told by phone that both items had been deferred. The March 1999 CPTCA newsletter reported that it seemed that the day before the meeting Dulwich and West Norwood MP Tessa Jowell had written to Bromley’s chief executive expressing concerns over traffic, congestion, pollution and legal issues associated with the Crystal Palace Campaign’s appeal to the House of Lords. Despite the cancellation hundreds of protesters still turned up at Bromley Civic Centre’s great hall and almost forced the meeting to be scrapped by chanting through the rest of the meeting. Bromley declined to say why the items had been deferred. On March 3rd, a battalion of riot police, estimated at 800 backed up by 100 security guards and expert tunnellers and climbers, moved into the Big Willow eco village. At ground level the protesters were removed relatively peacefully and calmly in just 10 minutes. It would take almost another four weeks to remove around 30 above in their tree houses and 20 below secured by locks set into concrete along the tunnels. John Payne of the Crystal Palace Campaign thanked the eco-warriors for their stay, praising them for their “valiant efforts”. To avoid legal problems the Campaign had disassociated itself from the environmentalists. Dr Martin Heath of the Ridge Wildlife Group said: “If Bromley council thinks this is the end of the matter they are very much mistaken.” It wasn’t.
May 1999 The Crystal Palace Campaign and CPP both tell the development control committee meeting delayed from March 30 the proposed multiplex should not go ahead without an environmental impact assessment being carried out. Full planning permission for the multiplex is granted. The committee vetoes the request for an environmental impact assessment. Walter Million of Bromley council: “If there’s a legal challenge to the European court I think it will fail. It is not open to this committee to demand a full assessment.”
June: Dianne Barker, mother of a two year old girl who lives on Anerley Hill, decides to try and seek a judicial review of the council’s decision to grant planning permission for the multiplex without carrying out an environmental impact assessment first.
“I was walking through the park one day and Martin Heath (of the Ridge Wildlife Group) was asking for signatures to stop the building. I signed. I didn’t think anything more. It: wasn’t until a couple of months later the eco-warriors moved in. I was in the park with my daughter, got talking to them, found out what they were doing and went along to Bromley council and saw the plans. I said ‘this isn’t right’. So I asked around to see if anyone knew a solicitor who could answer questions.” Dianne soon found legal help.
“I’m doing this for me and my little girl and her future. We go to the park nearly every day and wouldn’t go if the multiplex was built. It’s such an eyesore.” She explained she would have to show what effect the building would have. “There will be pollution from 7am to 10pm. The traffic will be horrendous but Bromley will not listen.”
July – and the review is granted “When I was told the news I was running around my flat. I’m even more confident now” says a delighted Diane. Bromley’s Walter Million is disappointed the judge gave leave for the review. “We would expect to win and the council’s defence of the application to succeed.”
October: Philip Kolvin writes to the chairman of UCI cinemas, which had signed up very early on as a tenant of the multiplex. Accompanying his letter is the petition against the multiplex. It contains 19,000 signatures. The letter is delivered to coincide with a march and rally.
2000, January. Private Eye magazine takes a sideswipe at Bromley’s director of leisure and community services, Robbie Stoakes, after he told a study day on London’s public spaces at the Museum of London: “I don’t think we should discount the recreational values of green space.” Mr Stoakes responds: “Surely it is better for Crystal Palace to be reborn for the 21st century rather than leave this nearly derelict site to slide further into decline?”
March: Six residents and traders petition the European Parliament over the multiplex. They say serious issues including its impact on traffic flows in the area; its impact on nature and wildlife in the park; and increases in pollution, noise and accident levels are among serious issues which should be addressed before the development is allowed to go ahead.
April: Dianne Barker loses her plea for a judicial review. “I just felt like crying all day. If I said I wanted to slit my wrists then it would give you an idea of just how upset I feel.” Walter Million says: “The courts have now supported us on numerous occasions. We hope this will be an end to the matter and that Ms Barker and her advisors will not waste further public money, the legal aid and the council’s, on what we believe would be a fruitless appeal. Delaying tactics by those opposed to the development jeopardised the benefits for the wider community,” he added.
May: LRP chairman Ian Livingstone summoned – to the continued on page 31 continued from page 19 House of Commons. Tessa Jowell and 33 others – including Croydon North MP Malcolm Wicks and various local organisations – want to know why a promised community forum was still not up and running.
July: LRP applies for six pub licences, six licensed cafe/bar restaurants, a licensed tenpin bowling alley and a members only licensed health and fitness club for the multiplex. The application, due to be heard by Bromley licensing justices on July 21st, is postponed because of opposition from individuals and local community groups. (It would eventually be heard over three days in November).
August: The Architects Journal (Aug 17) reports that Ian Ritchie has been replaced as architect on the multiplex site. “The developer has sworn Ian Ritchie to silence about why he was replaced,” the magazine reports. But Ritchie reacts to comments by Bromley’s chief planner Stewart Macmillan in the same article. In a letter to the magazine (Sep 7) he says: “We had detailed and specified the entire external envelope of the building of glass and stainless steel and these significant elements of the building had been tendered (put out for possible contract) and the tenders returned. We, and to our knowledge all of the design consultants were asked to stop work in September 1999. We received no further instructions from our client.” In April this year they had met with LRP. New budget, programme and procurement conditions were imposed which we could not accept considering the status, sensitivity and high quality the project demands. “We reluctantly declined to accept further instructions from LRP.” In a press release the Crystal Palace Campaign noted that Ritchie’s replacement as ‘delivery architect’ -Renton Howard Wood Levin – had remained unpublicised by both Bromley and LRP. “Major changes to Ritchie’s designs are apparent in RHWL’s drawings. They include the access ramps, overuse of enmeshed granite instead of steel, and rooftop details.” These details, known as reserved matters, were up for final approval by Bromley’s development control committee on Tuesday October 3 where it was revealed that David Wood, chairman of Bromley’s own advisory panel on conservation areas, had warned the council that he and his colleagues had expressed and continued to express considerable disquiet that certain of these details were being eroded, possibly to save money. “We strongly advise that this should not happen, otherwise the council will be risking severe criticism or even possible court action.” This passage was excised from the report to the committee, the Crystal Palace Campaign announced in a press release the day after the committee unanimously approved final-detail planning. A Crystal Palace Campaign spokesman said Bromley councillors had voted without having seen any samples of the massive structure’s finish or any meaningful illustration of its gross impact on the London skyline. “They wouldn’t dream of doing it to their own homes. Their callous disregard shows again they care nothing for the local community and only think of Bromley’s coffers. The fight goes on.” Stuart Macmillan said it was the final hurdle in the planning process. “I am sure we will soon see a landmark building worthy of this unique site.”
November: the European Commission in Brussels says it has taken a formal decision against the UK government concerning Bromley’s failure to require the multiplex developer to conduct a prior environmental impact assessment. The notice, which follows a detailed complaint by the Campaign, directly challenges the High Court decision to dismiss Diane Barker’s application for a judicial review. And on November 30 LRP see their applications for six full licences and six cafe/ restaurant licences for the multiplex slashed to just one full licence and ten restaurant licences (where drinks can only be bought with meals). Licences were also granted for a members-only health club and a small bar in a bowling alley. Among the 600 who objected were Dr Denise Lodge, headmistress, Sydenham Girls’ High School; Lord Warner, who had been policy adviser to the Home Secretary in 1997-98; Sir Keith Morris, former UK ambassador to Colombia appearing on behalf of College ward, Dulwich and Norwood Labour party; and Pat Trembath, chairman of the Sydenham Society.
2001: In February the Court of Appeal grants Dianne Barker leave to appeal. Lord Justice Dyson accepts there are ‘very important matters’ to be decided.
Sue Nagle(centre) and fellow protestors
April: Geraint Davies, Labour MP for Croydon Central, presents the Crystal Palace bill 2001 to Parliament. The bill aims to put tight constraints on the type of building that is permissible on the site – and to transfer responsibility for the site from Bromley to the GLA. In March Philip Kolvin, in an article in the Telegraph magazine says that as well as threatening legal action over statements he had made, Bromley council, had also written to his head of chambers saying he ought to be “concerned about a member of the Bar in your chambers making such unsubstantiated allegations in a public manner.”
On May 11, 2001 came unexpected news. Bromley council was scrapping its plans for the multiplex and terminating its agreement with LRP. Protesters celebrated their victory.
Conservative group leader Cllr Michael Tickner said it was not a defeat. “The only opposition was due to nimbyism of the campaigners.” Among the reasons for scrapping the multiplex plans given by Cllr Chris Maines were the delays caused by the Crystal Palace Campaign and that the bottom had fallen out of the multiplex market. “It is a sad day for the people who live in the immediate area who would have benefited economically,” he added.
August 2001:: The European Commission formally requests that the environmental impact assessment is carried out – even though the multiplex project has been scrapped. 2002, January 7th: Philip Kolvin writes to Coun Michael Tickner to suggest a peaceful process for the park’s regeneration. “Our success in defeating the multiplex gave us only fleeting satisfaction, for while we have battled the park has festered. Victory for us will be a regeneration scheme for the park which enhances the historic parkland without detriment to local residents and which commands local support. We believe that with goodwill on all sides this can be achieved. The conflict between your council and our community has caused a gross waste of public money, officer time and, most importantly, creative energy. All this could be diverted into a project for Crystal Palace Park, which we will all be proud to leave to our children. It’s time to talk.” Later that month Bromley council issues a writ against LRP alleging the firm failed to pay £6.1 million for a 125-year lease for the site by an agreed deadline the previous year.
In April a survey finds 69% of residents are against any commercial development of the top part of the park. More than 75% say they would prefer an ecology park or managed parkland for the actual site of the former Crystal Palace. More than 2,300 responses were received from 40,000 questionnaires sent out. Ray Sacks, now Crystal Palace Campaign chairman, says that one of the critical things which came out of the survey was that people wanted to have a say on what happened in the park. In July, Cllr Tickner agreed to explore a new process of consulting local residents aimed at leading to community partnership in the future management of the park. October: Dianne Barker is granted leave to appeal to the House of Lords. The CPCA newsletter notes that a valid planning permission remains in force for the park until March 2003. 2003, January: The European Commission announces it is taking the UK government to the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg over Bromley council’s failure to require an environmental impact assessment. In April Bromley announces it has reached an out of court settlement with LRP. The firm will pay the council £1.4 million over two years with the council retaining the firm’s £600,000 deposit. In December the council announces the site will remain as metropolitan open land (MOL). They had planned to scrap the MOL status for the Palace site as part of the 10-year Unitary Development Plan, which every council has. This gives all land across any borough a designated usage.
2004, January: Bromley council agrees ‘in principle’ to transfer the park, including the stadium and national sports centre, to the GLA. (Note: At the time of writing this article Bromley STILL owns the park). In the February issue of Spaces and Places Philip Kolvin highlights a variety of reasons the Crystal Palace Campaign had been successful.
“Fifth, and finally, we were massively helped by Bromley’s hostility towards us. Through this whole period Bromley refused to meet with us, so we always had to meet exclusively in court. Had they ever tried to meet us halfway, the Crystal Palace Campaign would have found it much harder to retain support. As it was we kept the great majority of the community behind us.”
In March a meeting of park stakeholders including all the local amenity groups, local councillors, LDA and English Heritage representatives and members of the public met. A Crystal Palace Campaign press release said: “For the first time in many years an optimistic note crept into the proceedings since real improvements to the park seemed now to be possible.” August: The LDA will ask the public what they want to see the park used for. In September the public inquiry inspector Mrs Ava Wood rules that the Crystal Palace site should remain metropolitan open land. Even though Bromley had already announced it was dropping plans to change the land’s status Mrs Wood found no reasons at all for changing the situation. “She signalled a clear warning to Bromley that letting the land fall into dereliction could never be a reason to build on it and instead she demanded that the land be improved,” said a Crystal Palace Campaign press release.
New Crystal Palace Campaign chairman Ray Sacks said: “This is the ribbon on the trophy in terms of the protection of the site.” A Bromley council spokesman, welcoming the decision, said the status would not necessarily prevent developers from building on the land. “People would have to demonstrate in planning applications very special circumstances. It is possible planning permission could still be granted.”
May 2006: European judges rule that Government planners broke EU environmental law by failing to require developers of major projects to conduct environmental impact assessments. Former Crystal Palace Campaign chairman Philip Kolvin says he is proud that the Crystal Palace Campaign has left a three-fold legacy – a saved park, a process of dialogue leading to a sustainable future for the park and an environmentally sounder improvement to the country’s planning system which would be of benefit to communities the length and breadth of the nation.
“IT’S VICTORY! People power wins the day,” screamed the front page of the Streatham, West Norwood and Crystal Palace Guardian of January 18th. Dianne Barker would have a new planning law named after her. The European Court of Justice ruled in her favour, stating the Government’s interpretation of environmental impact assessment was incorrect. Barker’s Law now forces all councils to take into account the environmental impact of all developments before granting planning permission. On December 6th last year Dianne and her legal team went to the House of Lords to hear its views on the European Court judgement. “It wasn’t in a committee room – we went into the actual chamber. You wait so long to get in. You’re in there for 10 minutes and all five judges have to agree. They could have said no. But the law lords agreed with what I and Europe had said. When we came out I knew we’d won but to be told it’s in your name – I was just stunned.” I asked if it was all worth it. “Very much. I’d seriously think twice about taking on a major force like Bromley again but I’d got the decision, got the ruling I wanted – and it WAS worth it.”
LDA
In 2007 Crystal Palace Park is again the subject of planning controversies. In October 2005the London Development Agency launched a batch of wide-ranging proposals for the park – the most controversial of which are plans to build housing at the top of Anerley Hill and at the other end of Crystal Palace Parade on the Rockhills site occupied by the Caravan Club.
Some of the leading campaigners against the multiplex are among those totally opposed to the plans for housing. John Payne, now chairman of CPCA, says they broadly support many of the proposals in seeing a greened and restored park. “But we are totally opposed to the building of any housing on the park. We also have concerns of routeing the Tramlink through this hugely protected parkland. Both threaten protected parks and open spaces across the land. And we are concerned about certain comments in LDA literature about a sustainable park. We don’t know what the LDA mean by that. If they are referring to a financially sustainable park it will be the first ever – apart from perhaps Disneyland. Parks are a local amenity of immense value – a break in the urban fabric.”
Dianne Barker says: “It’s a public park. We don’t need flats. The caravan site generates a lot of business around here. We don’t need to lose any more business – we’re losing enough as it is in the Triangle.” If anything gets built in the park it should be for the children of this area and the local community – and should also be tasteful,” she says. “There’s nothing for the children.”
Ken Lewington, a trustee of the Crystal Palace Foundation, says he’d like to see a ‘truly wonderful’ museum – whether or not on the actual site of the Palace he is not too sure. But it would be a museum with community facilities such as a lecture theatre. Of the LDA proposals he says all the green aspects seem acceptable at this stage. “But I still get the feeling we’re looking at a top – down process. Although there’s consultation going on within the dialogue process it seems the LDA have got their own ideas as to what they want and other ideas that have been put forward are just being pushed into the long grass…”
Final detailed plans are d to be announced in September.
Boring but important bits
Bromley council’s ‘Restoring the Vision’ project was an integrated set of nine major programmes. Single Regeneration Budget. (SRB) funding was planned to contribute to eight of these. SRB money was crucial to bringing in a potential £57 million of Lottery board support. The purpose of ‘Restoring the Vision’ was to regenerate the Crystal Palace area. This would include a new private sector development of ‘major architectural merit’ on the site of the old Crystal Palace, the restoration of the park with the Heritage lottery fund and the creation of a Paxton centre of excellence in horticulture and park design along with a permanent stage for the concert bowl with the Arts lottery fund.
Sources:
(From Palace Mag April 07)
Crystal Palace Campaign’s website which includes media releases and many – but not all – articles on the issue; news cuttings from Upper Norwood reference library’s archive and CPTCA (later CPCA) newsletters which are also available on request in the reference library. Along with Doug Brooks’ article in ‘The Wood Warbler’ particular mention should also be made of Fred Emery’s Financial Times article on the licensing justices hearing (see Crystal Palace Campaign website).
If you are interested in joining our mailing list, please submit your email below. 
