• News
• /
• About Us
• /
• Membership
• /
• Events
• /
• Planning
• /
• Gallery
• /
• Contact Us
• /
• Archive

The uses that CPF presently envisage for the rooms are:

• Room 1 – CPF Book & souvenir shop
   1875 use: A Refreshment Room

• Room 2 – Great Exhibition 1851 display
   1875 use: The Ladies’ Waiting Room

• Room 3 – Toilet and storage
   1875 use: The Ladies’ Lavatory

• Room 4 – Sydenham Crystal Palace display
   1875 use: The Gentlemen’s’ Waiting Room

• Room 5 – Railway display (High and Low Level Stations)
   reflecting the importance of railways in the history
   and development of the Crystal Palace
   1875 use: The Gentlemen’s Lavatory

• Room 6 – Office
   1875 use: The Telegraph Office

• Lobby – Information area displaying CPF and
   other local events
   1875 use: A communal lobby area

Supporters of this project are:

• London Development Agency
• English Heritage
• Southern Railway
• London Borough of Bromley
• Local Politicians
• The Crystal Palace Community Association
• Local Groups

Close

In reply:-

Croydon Council claims that the limited funding is a consequence of the £37 million deficit that the new administration inherited after the last elections. However, Croydon's other libraries continue to receive inflation-linked funding and improved library services, while Upper Norwood has not seen an increase since 1992. This lack of parity sees Croydon Council taxpayers, living in Upper Norwood, subsidising the more centrally located Croydon libraries while their own long-established and well-used local library is allowed to decline.

In a blaze of publicity Croydon's Mayor, local councillors and other dignitaries, proudly opened the newly refurbished library in June 2004 at a cost of £1.2 million. The newly installed facilities required an increased staff and financial commitment, but, if the current under-funding continues, redundancies will be inevitable along with a decline in the services currently on offer followed inevitably by closure.

The Crystal Palace Community Association and the Upper Norwood Library Campaign have pledged to fight to ensure that the Library receives proper long-term funding and that redundancies, reduced facilities and closure are not considered options.

To join the Upper Norwood Library Campaign please send a completed membership form to the UNLC Treasurer, 5 Becondale Road, SE19 1QJ. Membership forms - along with contact details and the latest news and information concerning the library's future - can be found on the Upper Norwood Library Campaign website.

And for a list of people to write to and express your concerns over the possible closure of the Library as a consequence of inadequate funding, please download contact details in either Acrobat or Word format.

Close

Tessa Jowell MP visits UNJL
24 February 2007

The Rt Hon. Tessa Jowell, MP for Dulwich and West Norwood visited the Upper Norwood Library today to demonstrate her support for its continued place at the heart of our community.

A letter from CPCA chairman John Payne was published in the South London Press on Friday 2nd March, in response to an article in the South London Press of Tuesday 20 February concerning the possible removal of the Caravan Club from Crystal Palace Park.

The letter highlights the desire of the London Mayor and the LDA to use the land for housing.

To read the full letter and the original article, click here

LDA Reveal Time Scale for Crystal Palace Park Proposals as 20 Years

Crystal Palace Football Club
At the London Development Agency's latest Crystal Palace Dialogue Main Group meeting on Saturday 10 February there was unanimous opposition to CPFC relocating to Crystal Palace Park. The public were reassured when Roger Frith, LDA Senior Development Manager, dismissed reports in the local press concerning CPFC moving to a ground in Crystal Palace Park, as speculation, saying, "It is not something that the LDA as an organisation supports, neither does the GLA . I can make it quite clear that we have no intention of having a dialogue with the football club..."

The Grade II listed subway

Tilman Latz, of Latz and Partners, the recently appointed Park Master Planners, outlined initial ideas for the restoration of the old Crystal Palace hilltop site. He described tree plantings, wildlife and ecology areas, a park promenade, opening up views to the west and improved facilities and services including opportunities to stage temporary events such as the ice-rink. He recognised the importance of the Grade II listed Subway and considered it as a possible location for a new museum.

Tilman Latz confirmed there would be no commercial development on the site of the old Crystal Palace saying "we are confident we can put something there which is as strong, but gives the place really back to the people withou t investing millions or commercialising it."

Park Proposals
Other ideas included two glasshouses on the Italian Terrace: one as a Mediterranean garden with music and a café at the southern end and the other, a tropical garden with butterfly house to the north. Latz envisage building power-generating wind towers on the original bases of Brunel's water towers for new water features, the removal of the Lodge hostel and the construction of an adventure playground on its foundation, the removal of ugly concrete structures and parking surfaces, and the restoration of an accessible and greened central axis. There was no mention of alternative parking facilities for cars and coaches.

National Sports Centre (NSC)
In the latest LDA change, swimming at the NSC will continue following the installation of new pumping and filtration equipment. In the longer term, the building will become a "pavilion" for dry sports, earth banked with soil extracted from the construction of a new local sports centre near the Station. This latter development will not occur until sometime after 2012.

Controversy
Whilst there was broad support for Latz & Partners' plans for the greening of the Park, concerns were expressed when, disregarding the published findings of his own consultants that demonstrate the overwhelming public opposition to building private luxury residences on protected public parkland, Tilman Latz endorsed the LDA's highly contentious housing plans. He said "I would like to have these villas back" and that they "should be taken up the hill to Rockhills to the corner..." Repeatedly, throughout his Park presentation Mr Latz stated that he "could not go into detail".
Note: Rockhills was the name of Sir Joseph Paxton's former mansion and never an area with villas or other public/private housing.

Despite Ordinance Survey and other maps that clearly define the Park's boundaries, Latz maintained that this area (Rockhills) was, according to their research, ".never part of the Park". This statement also conflicts with English Heritage's Register of Parks and Gardens.
Note: Tilman Latz acknowledged at his own public consultation dialogue on 27 January 2007 the overwhelming public concerns over both housing built on the Park and the Tram being routed across parkland.

The Triangle Gateway / Tramlink
Latz' drawings of this area of the Park confirmed it would remain public open space without major building to inhibit public views into or out of the Park. However, the drawings show a twin-track tram line running through this area of the Park. Disingenuously, slides were presented showing various continental trams running through green settings, using a three rail system, thus avoiding unsightly overhead power lines. When concerns were expressed about the tram running through the Park, Mr Latz said "it's not my business, it's TfL's business but basically I must say that I support it."

His views disregard those expressed at public meetings by his own consultation team who "noted there was strong opposition to the potential tram extension routes that enter the Park." Tilman Latz said he was in favour of the tram because of his positive experiences in Europe, while admitting "there are some terrible examples". He qualified his support for tram by saying "if we don't get that quality, forget about tramway."

All attempted discussion on the tram was prevented by the Facilitator on the justification that it was not part of the Park Master Plan despite reference to it in the LDA Planning Framework document (the basis of the public consultation) and where TfL are represented on the GLA Crystal Palace Planning Framework steering group.

Capel Manor to Resubmit Their Application
Two members of the Park Working Group described their visit to Capel Manor College's HQ in Enfield. The College's previous application to build on the Park was refused by Bromley's Planning Committee after inconsistencies in their application. It is now expected that, in line with previous undertakings, they will include, in their amended application, the establishing of an urban farm with better public access. It is likely that their plans for extensive accommodation and classrooms for students in a new complex within the Park will be dropped while their students use facilities in the NSC Jubilee Stand, although this is planned to be demolished in five to six years time by the LDA.

Blatant Interference / Coloured Dots Replace Debate
Blatant manipulation by the Facilitator Nigel Westaway prevented discussion on the controversial LDA housing proposals and tram extension through the Park, despite these being items on the agenda. Westaway said that he knew what was going to be said and that there was no need for discussion, and he recommended 'moving on as time was running out'.

Attendees could only express their views by affixing 'red' for no and 'green' for yes dots to wall posters, along with provision for written comments on a separate sheet. However, the nature and wording of issues against which attendees were to place dots and comments were those of the Facilitators.

20-Year Time Scale
Roger Frith confirmed the time-scale for completion of LDA Crystal Palace Park proposals is now 15-20 years and that costings for the Park restoration were still not available.
Note: For more than two years the LDA has promised to reveal its business plan and Park costings.

Editors Note:
A letter from Nigel Westaway & Associates and The Environment Council accompanying the Crystal Palace Main Group meeting agenda stated that "some dialogue members have found recent meetings frustrating or unpleasant and we have had frequent comments that they are dominated by a small number with others getting little opportunity to speak". Under the heading of 'Group representation' it said "I would like to remind you that groups attending the meeting should send no more than five representatives". All attendees are Park stakeholders and individuals with rights of free speech and the CPCA considers the imposition of this condition an attempt to inhibit free expression and stifle objective comment on contentious aspects of LDA Park proposals.

Close

Comments on TfL proposals to extend
Tramlink to Crystal Palace

18 January 2006

1. Consultation

1.1 Transport for London's publication 'Croydon Tramlink Crystal Palace extension: Public consultation on route options in Anerley and Crystal Palace' states: "The LDA undertook public consultation on their proposals in late 2005 and all the options presented in the consultation for the Norwood Gateway at that time made allowance for the tram."

1.2 However, the London Development Agency Crystal Palace Park 'consultation' process on the future of Crystal Palace Park made no mention of this "allowance for the tram" or TfL proposal to extend Croydon Tramlink through Crystal Palace Park.

1.3 Reference to the "potential extension of Croydon Tramlink" to Crystal Palace is made in the LDA Planning Framework publication, which was available in limited numbers, usually only on request to those who had become aware of it.

1.4 No reference to Tramlink routing through Crystal Palace Park was included in the LDA supporting publication "Shaping the future for Crystal Palace Park" which formed the basis of the LDA public consultation questionnaire, beyond a postage-stamp sized, untitled illustration that required a powerful magnifying glass to reveal the image of a tram.

1.5 Explanation for this omission was offered by Matthew Yates of TfL at the Norbury & Upper Norwood Partnership meeting on 15 November 2006 as: "There was no intention to mislead, but these are two separate schemes. We did not want to confuse the public as the two schemes are not interdependent" and "We were also at that stage looking at stopping at the station and not going into the park". With these conflicting statements Matthew Yates achieved precisely what he claimed he wanted to avoid.

1.6 The CPCA concludes that both the LDA Park 'consultation' and TfL's own 'consultation' failed to adequately inform respondents of the intention to route the tram through the Park, thereby compromising the integrity of the consultation results.

2. TfL MORI survey

2.1 The MORI survey fails to make any valid case for requirement for the tram to be routed through the Park in order to terminate at the hilltop stating: "The route would then continue through the periphery of Crystal Palace Park through an area that is under utilised at present. This periphery area would be landscaped to ensure good design. The tram would then terminate at a tram stop adjacent to the bus station."

2.2 Crystal Palace Park is Grade II * listed on the English Heritage Register of Parks and Gardens and has a precise boundary. The MORI survey failed to show whether the proposed tram route would be inside or outside the Park boundary.

2.3 The assurance given in the MORI survey that this "area would be landscaped to ensure good design" is irrelevant and can be considered a leading remark.

2.4 The statement in the MORI survey that the edge of Crystal Palace Park is "under utilised" is subjective. All parks have areas of varying degrees of use and this cannot be given as justification for routing a light railway system through them. No valid or sustainable case is given that the edge of Crystal Palace Park is any less used than other areas of Crystal Palace Park nor that landscaping by Tramlink to accommodate a tram and its infrastructure would improve this area of parkland.

2.5 The MORI survey failed to make clear that all three options route the tram through public parkland. The survey's credibility is further open to doubt when, on maps of route options available to the public during consultation, it showed the main railway line from Crystal Palace Station to Victoria/London Bridge as overland through the Park, when in fact it runs underground in a tunnel.

2.6 The CPCA considers that routing the tram, with its associated infrastructure, through Crystal Palace Park is more likely to provoke negative rather than positive outcomes, and that the claims and statements in the MORI survey are misleading to the point of disingenuousness.

3. Business Case

3.1 TfL claim that extending the tram to Crystal Palace will generate extra spending, create employment opportunities and contribute to an increase in property prices. These claims are unsubstantiated and simplistic with no supporting study or business plan provided.

3.2 The claim that the tram will "regenerate" the Triangle is also questionable as it can be argued that it is more likely to take people away from the area, thus benefiting Croydon, Wimbledon, and other shopping centres and destinations en route.

3.3 Regular bus and rail services already link Croydon with Crystal Palace, with trains taking just nine minutes from Crystal Palace to West Croydon station. The tram is less flexible than a bus service in terms of routing, which affects pick-up and alighting points. The spending of £70 million to duplicate existing public transport services is an irresponsible use of public money, although the case exists for a regular local hopper-style bus route connecting local stations, stores and high streets.

3.4 TfL further claim that "property prices in wards served by the tram have risen by an average of 4% more than in other wards". This is not a justification for extending Croydon Tramlink to Crystal Palace and would benefit only those who own their own properties and are moving out of the area, while those seeking to move in will find it more difficult to get onto the property ladder. Others may find that the tram running past their door will have a negative impact on the value of their property.

3.5 Upper Norwood /Crystal Palace is predominately a high density residential area with business opportunity locations at a premium and TfL's presumption of job creation by extending Tramlink to Crystal Palace is not demonstrated.

3.6 The routing of the tram on Anerley Road and Anerley Hill will create major traffic problems in the area during and after construction, harming the physical environment and the commercial viability of the area in both the short and long-term.

4. Effects on Crystal Palace Park

4.1 Crystal Palace Park would be severely compromised by the presence of a tram. Examples of the negative impact of the tram can be seen throughout the Croydon Tramlink system. The record of extensive vandalism, damage and lack of maintenance and housekeeping on existing tram routes is evidence of the failure of expectations to be realised, resulting in the infrastructure blighting and urbanising the environment through which it passes. This situation is openly admitted by TfL as being a problem, but the lack of positive and constructive action by the tram operators in resolving these issues does little to assuage public confidence in demonstrable, unsupported promises of establishing a rigid and structured maintenance regime.

4.2 The Mayor's London Plan and the London Strategic Parks Project have clear policies with regard to protection of the capital's public parks and open spaces. None have been desecrated with commercial development consequent to sale of land to the highest bidder and some have undergone extensive makeovers, resulting in wide acknowledgement and praise.

4.3 TfL's scheme to bring Tramlink to Crystal Palace via Crystal Palace Park conflicts with the presumption against inappropriate development on Metropolitan Open Land and a Registered Historic Park & Garden Grade II *. Furthermore, there is conflict with Bromley's Adopted Unitary Development Plan's policy BE11 and MOL policies. Significantly, Bromley Council does not have an Urban Design Guide which informs alterations to the streetscape resulting from construction of the tram, particularly in respect of tram passing through a historic park where there will be adverse visual effects. These are all material considerations in planning terms where protection and safeguarding of the historic interest, integrity, character and appearance of the park are paramount.

4.4 Any case for bringing the tram to Crystal Palace must include an Environmental Impact Assessment to identify the true effect of Tramlink on Crystal Palace Park and the wider environment.

4.5 The intrusive nature of the proposal would fail to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Crystal Palace Park Conservation Area by altering the character of the area in a material or detrimental way.

4.6 The intrusive nature of the proposal would alter the character of the Grade II * registered Park of Special Historic Interest in a material or detrimental way.

4.7 The intrusive nature of the proposal would be detrimental to the character, setting and appearance of the Grade II listed terraces.

4.8 The CPCA notes that the Mayor's London Plan and the London Strategic Parks Project is being ignored without a special and overwhelming case being advanced for extending Tramlink through Crystal Palace Park.

4.9 Routing the tram through Crystal Palace Park would impact on green open space and an historic and sensitive environment to which the public have a right to peaceful enjoyment. Such a development would set a precedent threatening the protection, security and character of our green public places.

5. Impact and effects on area

5.1 All TfL options to extend the tram to Upper Norwood/Crystal Palace include "possible property acquisition", i.e. compulsory purchase of people's homes and businesses. This destruction of property for the tram-track and associated infrastructure will result in a change in character and ambiance of the streetscape with consequent social impact.

5.2 The likely loss of bus and train services, as a consequence of competition from the tram, is seen in the cutting of bus services on certain routes in Croydon following the introduction of Croydon Tramlink. Similarly, it is expected that some overland train services will be cut after the completion of the East London Line extension.

5.3 Routing the tram through Crystal Palace Park raises considerable safety issues for park users. The Norwood Gate entrance has significant pedestrian movements due to its proximity to the Triangle. The entrances to Crystal Palace Park via Cintra Gate and Ledrington Road also experience heavy pedestrian and other traffic entering the Park.

5.4 If route options 1 or 3 are chosen, heavy traffic congestion and associated pollution on the already busy Anerley Road and Anerley Hill will be inevitable.

6. Summary

6.1 The CPCA finds that the views of its members and others are varied and often ambivalent with some welcoming the extension while others consider that adequate transport facilities already exist in this area. The MORI residents' survey states "most residents (80%) who use public transport say it is easy to travel within the area - one third (34%) cite is as very easy. While nearly half (46%) of residents do not consider there to be any transport problems locally .." One clear view that has emerged is that routing the tram through protected public parkland is emotive and contentious and is generally considered unacceptable, as demonstrated in a petition to the London Mayor signed by more than 7,000 people against sale of land within Crystal Palace Park for commercial development, which would set a precedent for public parks and open spaces.

6.2 The CPCA believes no case has been made for a Tramlink extension to the hilltop of Crystal Palace Park and that the practical and logical terminus should be at Crystal Palace Railway Station via routing adjacent to the existing railway track. Under the existing Disability Discrimination legislation the installation of a lift from platform to road level at Crystal Palace Station for the disabled, infirm, elderly, and parents with push-chairs is long overdue.

6.3 Trams are a means of public transport which should be restricted to roads and tracks in attenuating their intrusive and undesirable environmental consequences, and there is no place for them in Crystal Palace Park, even when driven by the wrong imperatives which include the London Mayor's stated wish to see a major development at the top of Crystal Palace Park.

6.4 The CPCA maintains that the TfL Croydon Tramlink Crystal Palace extension 'consultation' was misleading and failed to provide sufficient accurate information to enable objective public scrutiny, particularly in the absence of any coherent business case and with no option for the possibility of terminating the tram at Crystal Palace Station.

Crystal Palace Community Association
18th January 2007

Close