Crystal Palace Campaign Chair Ray Sacks and the CPCA
March 2011

From: ray@sacksjones.co.uk
To:
Subject: CPC Bulletin January 2011
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2011 19:02:33 +0000

Crystal Palace Campaign - Bulletin 28 January 2011
Master Plan for Crystal Palace Park

In my bulletin of December 2010, I mentioned that the Secretary of State finally approved the Master Plan Outline Planning Application which, to remind you, was passed by Bromley Council in December 2008. The six weeks grace period after the December sign-off ended with the Crystal Palace Community Association (CPCA) lodging an application for judicial review on the last day. The application is in the names of Anthony Elliot and John Payne - the latter being the Chair of the CPCA. I have applied to the Administrative Court Office for a copy of the document to find out what it is all about and will report further on that in due course.

For the record

Her Majesty's Courts Service has lots of useful information and includes "Notes for guidance on applying for judicial review": Section 2 "What is judicial review?"

2.1 Judicial review is the procedure by which you can seek to challenge the decision, action or failure to act of a public body such as a government department or a local authority or other body exercising a public law function. If you are challenging the decision of a court, the jurisdiction of judicial review extends only to decisions of inferior courts. It does not extend to decisions of the High Court or Court of Appeal. Judicial review must be used where you are seeking:

• a mandatory order (i.e. an order requiring the public body to do something and formerly known as an order of mandamus);
• a prohibiting order (i.e. an order preventing the public body from doing something and formerly known as an order of prohibition); or
• a quashing order (i.e. an order quashing the public body's decision and formerly known as an order of certiorari)
• a declaration
• HRA Damages

What drives the CPCA?

I often wonder why the CPCA persist with their opposition to the Master Plan and who is it, even amongst their own people, supporting this latest move to challenge "procedure". In developing the regeneration plans for Crystal Palace Park, there has been a huge amount of consultation and open discussion among all the stakeholders including publication of many information news-letters.
Remember:

*the numerous 'Park News' bulletins

*'Shaping the Future for Crystal Palace Park'

*the Main Consultation Group meetings

*the exhibitions by the Master Planners and

*the work-shops.

Everyone had their say in a process which was said by many (experts as well) to be amongst the most open and extensive consultation of its kind.

The result was the Master Plan which, for the first time since the Sydenham Crystal Place burned down, was a comprehensive plan for the regeneration of Crystal Palace Park. It is true that there were some elements of the Master Plan which were disputed. Indeed, during the course of its development, some proposals were actually removed from the final document following consultation discussions. At the exhibition shortly before the plan was submitted to Bromley Council, most people essentially wanted the work to start on what they saw as great improvements for the park.

The CPCA lost their arguments in the consultation period and lost their arguments in the Inquiry (conducted with meticulous fairness by the Inspector Alan Novitzky PhD RIBA) in spite of being granted a postponement of the Secretary of Sates considerations. The CPCA have now resorted to a challenge on the "procedure" in order to scupper the Master Plan - I believe they will loose that too. They do not carry the majority of local people with them, nor could they (recently) persuade one local society they confronted to help fund their efforts. Are their members so convinced of their arguments that they will risk a very expensive enterprise? They would do better to donate the money to the park - perhaps planting trees or sponsoring a bench.

The action of the CPCA will not deter the Master Plan supporters
Regrettably, their action may delay the implementation of the Master Plan again - for it was the CPCA who had the plan called in, loosing two years of the regeneration process. However, another short delay will not deter those of us who want to see the regeneration of the Park. We will continue to work towards

*developing a long-term role for the community in park affairs and
*getting the funding needed for the Master Plan.

Football and Parks
Crystal Palace Park has inadvertently been caught up in a major dispute about the "legacy of the Olympic Stadium". I have put several published articles on the subject on the CPC website. I think the best of the comments comes from Paul Hayward of the Observer (News item N36). In addition the London Mayor, Boris Johnson, has now taken under his wing the Royal Parks. What effect will this have? All will be revealed (maybe) when the Olympic Committee decide on the stadium bids - now thought to be taking place next week!

• West Ham want to keep the existing Olympic Stadium to use mainly for football but also other events including athletics.
• Tottenham Hotspurs want to demolish the Stadium, build a football only venue and refurbish the Crystal Palace athletics track.
• Crystal Palace Football Club (sitting in the wings) want to move to Crystal Palace Park on the grounds that athletics will be done at the Olympic Stadium.

Enjoy the weekend and ignore the freezing weather....

Regards,

Ray

Ray Sacks
Chair
Crystal Palace Campaign
http://www.crystalpalacecampaign.org

Close

Ray Sacks and the Crystal Palace Campaign (CPC) - Bulletin 28 January 2011

Some Crystal Palace Community Association (CPCA) members have received emails from Crystal Palace Campaign (CPC) Chair Ray Sacks making critical reference to the CPCA, questioning its motivation and function.

Mr Sacks misleads those he has inflicted his 'bulletin' on in claiming the CPCA has made application for Judicial Review of the decision of the "Secretary of Sates" (sic) and details superfluous information on grounds for Judicial Review, when the CPCA is not seeking Judicial Review but challenging in the High Court, the decision of the Secretary of State to approve the LDA Crystal Palace Park Masterplan application.

Ray Sacks has the audacity to question "…why the CPCA persist with their opposition to the Master Plan and who it is even amongst their own people, supporting the latest move to challenge "procedure" and speculates that they will "loose" (sic) that too.

Quite simply the CPCA has consistently opposed commercial development in Crystal Palace Park since the threatened Multiplex, as did, incidentally, the CPC, and it opposes LDA Park Masterplan application including luxury residential development.

Just who also oppose the LDA Masterplan application Mr Sacks, are the overwhelming majority of Crystal Palace Park stakeholders including the Norwood Society, Sport England, Lambethans Society, Joseph Paxton Society, Crystal Palace Foundation, West Beckenham Residents Association, London Forum of Civic and Amenity Societies, Crystal Palace Park Action Group, Open Spaces Society, Friends of Crystal Palace Nature Garden, Ridge Wild Life Group, Residents of North- Side of Anerley Hill, and the 7000 who signed the petition against residential development in Crystal Palace Park.

Philip Kolvin QC, who was at one time CPC chair, also made a powerful and perceptive objection at the Local Public Inquiry into the LDA Park Masterplan application.

To emphasise the community benefit their proposal would bring, the Cinema Multiplex developers relied upon the statistic that there were 1.6 Million Stakeholders living within 30 minutes drive time of Crystal Palace Park. When in 2006 Mike Warwick quoted this statistic, which had never been formerly challenged, in a letter to the LDA, he was told in no uncertain terms that there were 6 Million London Crystal Palace Park Stakeholders. Since this confirmation was from LDA Executive Director of Development and Regeneration Tony Winterbottom, it became the definitive statistic from then on.

Further in questioning the motivation of the CPCA, Mr Sacks misleadingly claims;
"In developing the regeneration plans for Crystal Palace Park, there has been a huge amount of consultation and discussion among ALL the stakeholders." Well hardly all Mr Sacks, as the Nigel Westaway facilitated LDA Crystal Palace Park Dialogue actually obstructed and limited consultation and discussion with stakeholders.

More than 200 impressive sounding bodies and organisations 'signed up' to take part in the Park Dialogue, but in fact some of them never attended a single six-monthly meeting, many attending only very occasionally and the average attendance was about 50 to 60.
These meetings were never advertised and not open to the public, but by invitation only, and an estimate of the number of park stakeholders represented is about 7000 to 8000.

Clearly, Ray Sack's claim that "…everyone had their say in the process…" is quite untenable, and as may emerge in current legal challenge, or later, elsewhere, only a tiny fraction of London Crystal Palace Park stakeholders have been consulted.

Mr Sacks states that "At the exhibition shortly before the plan was submitted to Bromley Council, most people essentially wanted the work to start on what they saw as a great improvement for the park." But what Ray Sacks does not reveal is that at the exhibition near the Ornamental Garden in Crystal Palace Park many visitors could find no information on proposed luxury apartments and houses, whilst at the exhibition in Crystal Palace Station, any reference to residential development was near subliminal.

The exhibition in the Station was not open to all park stakeholders as on the 'Gala Night' it was 'regulated' by security guards on the entrance, to 'suits' and senior officers and officials from 'important' bodies and agencies, bearing lapel-badges, and quite disgracefully, local people were turned away. The unceasing supply of wine and canapés did not contribute to the coherence of some speakers. Needless to say, this junket was funded by the LDA, or more accurately, from the seemingly bottomless public money-pit. On those days that the 'Exhibition' was open to the suffering public, senior officers and officials were conspicuous for their absence, as was the abundance of wine and canapés.

The CPCA is grateful for this opportunity to invite Mr Sacks to confirm just who he now represents under the acronym CPC, as CPCA members Ken Lewington, Mike Warwick, John Payne, Suzanne Elkin and Nick Goy are former CPC members who resigned from this self appointed 'Steering Group' of a dozen un-elected people, unhappy with no membership structure or public meetings, and lack of accountability or transparency.

Over recent years, letters to Mr Sacks requesting further information, remain unanswered.

Mike Warwick raised thousands of pounds from concerts by internationally acclaimed musicians and artists to fund CPC opposition to a Multiplex cinema on the site of Paxton's glass masterpiece, under the slogan 'SAVE OUR PARK'. This slogan, which became synonymous with defence of a famous public park from commercial exploitation, said Save Our Park, not Save Our Park for the LDA to sell to developers for construction of luxury residential properties for a privileged few.

In response to Mr Sack's advice the CPCA would do better to donate its money to the park, it suggests the CPC should publish professionally audited accounts for the considerable monies it has received and use this money only for the purpose it was raised, which was, unequivocally, to Save Our Park, not support sale of it to speculators.

Piously, Ray Sacks says, "…another short delay will not deter those of us who want to see the regeneration of the Park." which is inconsistent with his stated support for sale of part of it and quite contrary to the original CPC Core Principles, and further demonstrates his tenuous grasp of the facts in falsely claiming "...for it was the CPCA who had the plan called in, loosing (sic) two years of the regeneration process." When actually, the LDA Masterplan was routinely called in as a Departure Application.

The CPCA rejects that selling-off parkland for luxury apartments and houses can regenerate it, and accordingly, will continue to oppose such desecration, as in the words of former London Mayor Ken Livingstone, 'Once it's gone, it's gone forever.'

The CPCA will not comment on Mr Sack's advice under Football and Parks beyond that he is no better informed on this than on the affairs of the CPCA, as it is not the "…Olympic Committee" (sic) who will decide on the stadium bids, but the Olympic Park Legacy Company (OPLC), a not for profit public company, chaired by Baroness Ford.

Mike Warwick

Close