Sydenham

Our Day in Court

On 2nd September the community packed out the Lord Chief Justice’s Court. There was respect, hush, and tension. The Campaign’s barrister made a quiet, reasoned, effective plea for a full judicial review. When he had finished, the judges left the Court for 15 nail- biting minutes. They returned and said that they thought our case arguable, but would hear Bromley and the developer. Their barristers tried to change the judges’ mind, but the judges became more resolute.

To much laughter, Lord Justice Chadwick said that, on the developer’s reasoning, his greenhouse and Stansted airport were in the same architectural style. The term “post-modern monstrosity” was coined, which we thought apt.

Then the Judges took an unprecedented step. They decided that the case was of such importance that the full judicial review should be heard by 3 judges of the Court of Appeal. We tumbled Out, elated, exhausted and looking forward to the final hearing. Bromley and the developer were nowhere to be seen.

Please contact the Campaign at the beginning of October when hopefully we’ll know the date of the hearing. Notices will also be posted in your local library and shop windows. Please come to the High Court and show your solidarity.

THE LEGAL CHALLENGE. WHAT IS IT ALL ABOUT?

The 1990 Crystal Palace Act states that any new building must reflect the architectural style of the original Crystal Palace. Graham Allen, the IVIP who was the architect of the Act, has said that the new design “owes more to a greyhound stadium grandstand than the original Crystal Palace”. If the Court agrees with him, this building may never be built.

Bromley’s planning committee was told that various experts had advised that the building complied with the Act. The Campaign has pointed out that the experts had done no such thing, and had in fact misunderstood or misapplied the words of the Act. These errors are fatal to the planning permission.

Second, according to Bromley’s policies, a building this size should have 2,400 car parking spaces. This one will have 950. That leaves 1,450 cars with nowhere to park. They will create huge congestion and pollution in the area, overwhelming our village streets and cruising past our homes into the small hours.

Third, the Council has ignored Government planning policy that Metropolitan Open Land “should not be used for developments which compromise its open character and value to London’s green setting”.

Government policy is also that cinemas belong in town centres - another point lost on Bromley.

THE ATTACK ON STYLE

Why are we attacking the style of the building, when it’s obvious that there shouldn’t be a massive building there at all? Because it is our best legal point. Arguing that this building is crass, ugly, immoral and an exercise in profiteering would be nice, but it wouldn’t win the case. Also, if the building needs to be designed with vaulted roofs like the original Palace, then it can’t be built, because you can’t put a car park on a dome.

Finally, there is a race to build multiplexes in South London. The latest is for an 11-screen redevelopment in Streatham with another 15-screen operation alongside Bromley South Station, whilst a 14-screen muliplex is underway in Croydon. Such proposals are more appropriate, placed as they are in town centre locations. If these and other schemes start while the developer is locked in battle with us, the developer may lose the race, and the site may be saved.

more

These are excerpts from the Campaign's newsletter and represent the views of the Campaign and not Sydenham Freeserve. We report them in the interest of informing the community about local activities. An opposing point of view from the Bromley sponsored Crystal Palace Partnership can be found here.

Sydenham NowSydenham PastCommunity Info
Business LinksWebsite InfoHomepage