Crystal Palace & Norwood Chamber of Commerce Transport Paper Draft

8/8/2019 Crystal Palace & Norwood Chamber of Commerce Transport Paper Draft

1/26

CPNCC Transport Manifesto

Printed 22/10/2010 transport paper summary draft Page 1 of 26 pages


Kevin Carleton-Reeves, MA (Cantab), CEng, MIMechE, MIET, ACQI Transport Consultant to the Chamber

Table of Contents

1.0 Introduction

2.0 The need for a Local Ec onomic Development Zone 2.1: Existing situation2.2: The Ch ambers recommendation 2.3: Key reasoning

3.0 Parking in the Triangle and adjacent areas

3.1: Existing situation and approach needed 3.2: Short-term improvement possibilities3.3: Long-term development solutions

4.0 Traffic control and pedestrian safety 4.1: Existing situation4.2: Traffic control issues4.3: Pedestrian safety issues

5.0 Tramlink extension5.1: Current position5.2: The Chambers view 5.3: Funding

6.0 Bus services6.1: Existing services6.2: Enhancements for evaluation6.3: Availability of real -time service i nformation6.4: Longer-term issues

7.0 Amenity issues in the Triangle7.1: The built environment: existing situation7.2: The Triangles backlands 7.3: Other amenity issues7.4: Funding

8.0 Potentially related issues

8.1: Development of Crystal Palace Park 8.2: Cinema campaign8.3: Crystal Palace Subway 8.4: Crystal Palace FC 8.5: Other issues

9.0 Potential for promotional campaigns9.1: Generalities9.2: Railways9:3: Buses9.4: Poster and circular campaigns9.5: Internet

10.0 Conclusions and Recommendations


2/26



Revision history No Details Date1.0 Outline Draft, issued to Chamber Committee 18/Oct/2010

2.0 Draft for review via Crystal Palace Local website 22/Oct/10WD (Working document) (as printed)

For Committee Approval (To come)

Formal Issue (To come)

Acknowledgements

Acknowledgements are gratefully made to the following:

List of contributors and sources used to be compiled

Jerry Savage of UNJL: for access to UNJLs historical records of the CP High Level line and for obtaining a full copy of the Tramlink CPExtension Consultation Report (I have a PDF of the full Consultation Report if anyone needs a copy, - KCR)

Abbreviations used in this Report

CP Crystal Palace

LA Local Authority: London borough authority having jurisdiction

TfLTransport for London: authority responsible for all transport matters in Lon-don: www.tfl.gov.uk

NR National Rail: co-ordinating body for the now-privatised British Rail services


3/26



Section 1: Introduction

To be developed when agreed draft is ready

Illustrations if any


4/26



Section 2 : The need for a Local Economic Develo pment Zone

2.1 Existing situation

2.1.1 Five Local Authorities (LAs) are responsible for the administration of the Triangleand its neighbouring catchment areas taken collectively: Lambeth, Bromley, Croy-don, Lewisham, and Southwark. The boundaries lie partly along the centre of streets and partly to one side, and elsewhere lie along intermediate propertyboundaries. The boundaries are marked in mauve colour on the map at

http://www.streetmap.co.uk/map.srf?x=533547&y=170715&z=110&sv=westow+hill&st=6&tl=Map+of+Westow+Hill,+London,+SE19&searchp=ids.srf&mapp=map.srf

This is judged to be a disbenefit, in its present consequences, to optimal devel-opment of the areas economic pote ntial.

2.2 The Chambers recommend ation

2.2.1 The five LAs should collaborate to agree boundaries for a Local Economic Devel-opment Zone, covering the Crystal Palace Triangle trading area in its entirety,along with contiguous residential areas, within which all matters affecting or rele-vant to its commercial activities are formally harmonised. These should then beharnessed to support and promote their development and associated economicactivity.

2.2.2 If Legislative action, for example the making of Orders-in-Council, is needed toempower LAs to act in concert in the above-mentioned manner, then a campaignfor this, via appropriate channels such as local MPs, LDA members, and the Lon-don Mayoralty, should be vigorously pursued.

2.3 Key reasoning (developed in detail in later sections of this Manifesto)

2.3.1 A consistent policy covering vehicle parking in the Triangle area is essential (cover-ing, for example: street signage, parking regulations and their enforcement,charging rates, and penalties for violations), so that visitors to the area see aseamless application of the policy regardless of which LAs administrative areathey have entered in order to park.

2.3.2 The parking policy should be developed to recognise each of the five distinctclasses of road users entering the area wishing to park; taking particular note of the fact that Crystal Palace station is on the boundary of a Transport for London(TfL) Fare Zone which affords substantial annual fare savings to commuters fromthe outer zones if free parking is locally and readily available. The recently-introduced Overground train service brings Canary Wharf to just 25-30 minutesfrom Crystal Palace, so is likely to exacerbate the problem, as can be seen at
http://www.streetmap.co.uk/map.srf?x=533547&y=170715&z=110&sv=westow+hill&st=6&tl=Map+of+Westow+Hill,+London,+SE19&searchp=ids.srf&mapp=map.srfhttp://www.streetmap.co.uk/map.srf?x=533547&y=170715&z=110&sv=westow+hill&st=6&tl=Map+of+Westow+Hill,+London,+SE19&searchp=ids.srf&mapp=map.srfhttp://www.streetmap.co.uk/map.srf?x=533547&y=170715&z=110&sv=westow+hill&st=6&tl=Map+of+Westow+Hill,+London,+SE19&searchp=ids.srf&mapp=map.srfhttp://www.streetmap.co.uk/map.srf?x=533547&y=170715&z=110&sv=westow+hill&st=6&tl=Map+of+Westow+Hill,+London,+SE19&searchp=ids.srf&mapp=map.srfhttp://www.streetmap.co.uk/map.srf?x=533547&y=170715&z=110&sv=westow+hill&st=6&tl=Map+of+Westow+Hill,+London,+SE19&searchp=ids.srf&mapp=map.srfhttp://www.streetmap.co.uk/map.srf?x=533547&y=170715&z=110&sv=westow+hill&st=6&tl=Map+of+Westow+Hill,+London,+SE19&searchp=ids.srf&mapp=map.srfhttp://www.streetmap.co.uk/map.srf?x=533547&y=170715&z=110&sv=westow+hill&st=6&tl=Map+of+Westow+Hill,+London,+SE19&searchp=ids.srf&mapp=map.srf


5/26



http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/standard-tube-map.pdf Section 3 of this document discusses this topic in detail.

2.3.3 All matters affecting roads and public transport in the Triangle area should beclosely co-ordinated between TfL, the LDA, and the respective LAs for the assur-ance of consistency as perceived by users in the respective areas.

2.3.4 Policies regarding business rateable values and rates, and availability of grants-in-aid for start-ups, should be co-ordinated by the LAs to ensure that a seamless pol-icy is experienced by traders regardless of which particular LA is the responsibleauthority.

2.3.5 Contributions involving financial commitment by the LAs should be vis ibly andfairly proportionate to their respective user populations as far as reasonably de-finable.
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/standard-tube-map.pdfhttp://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/standard-tube-map.pdfhttp://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/standard-tube-map.pdf


6/26


7/26



Short-term visitors typically remaining up to 1-1 hours, for example mostshoppers;

Visitors wishing to remain for longer periods, perhaps around 4 hours, for ex-ample diners and browsers;

Traders collection and delivery services, together with municipal services(such as waste collection) and short/medium-term construction traffic, oftenusing large vehicles;

Rail commuters seeking to economise on season ticket expenditure (thisgroup is addressed in more detail in 3.1.5 below).

Parking policy and its management must therefore be co-ordinated between theLAs to ensure that the available resource is shared equitably between these usergroups as far as is reasonably achievable.

3.1.5 The London rail network (covering all rail modes) is divided into a set of concen-tric charging zones in such a way that a simple zone-based fare structure can be

used to cover all transport modes. The system is administered by Transport forLondon (TfL). Crystal Palace station stands on the Zone 3-4 boundary, whichmeans that anyone resident outside Zone 3, who drives to Crystal Palace (or anystation within Zone 3, such as Gipsy Hill or Sydenham) and parks nearby, can use aZone 3 season to cover the remainder of his commute and so save money. Theparking space so occupied will thus be rendered unavailable to other visitorsfrom, typically, around 08:00 to 18:00 or even later, five or six days per week.

The zonal network map can be seen athttp://www.nationalrail.co.uk/passenger_services/maps/London_Connections.

pdf . An annual Travelcard (season ticket) covering Zones 1-3 currently costs 1208.The following table sets out the annual saving which can be made by commutersdriving from their zone-of-residence to within walking distance of CP station andusing free parking on- street, along with the break -even ranges from home (inmiles) based on typical fuel and wear-and-tear running costs published online bythe AA, and assuming about 240 days/year of use:

H o m e Z o n e

A n n u a

l f a r e s a v i n g :

f r e e p a r k i n g n e a r C P

R a n g e

f r o m

h o m e

( m i l e s ) -

s m

a l l c a r

R a n g e

f r o m

h o m e

( m i l e s )

l a r g e c a r

Stations in Home Zone (examples)

4 264 2-3 1 2 Selhurst, Norwood Junction, Thornton Heath5 552 5-6 3-4 Croydon (East/West), Waddon, Eden Park6 696 7-8 4-5 Caterham, Coulsdon S, Woodmansterne

This shows that the present regime of free all-day on-street parking anywhere in

the CP residential area provides a perceivable incentive to commuter parking,which probably generates little discernible economic benefit itself to the Triangle
http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/passenger_services/maps/London_Connections.pdfhttp://www.nationalrail.co.uk/passenger_services/maps/London_Connections.pdfhttp://www.nationalrail.co.uk/passenger_services/maps/London_Connections.pdfhttp://www.nationalrail.co.uk/passenger_services/maps/London_Connections.pdf


8/26



community, and which furthermore restricts capacity for motorists wishing to en-ter the area during the day for shorter periods.

The recently-introduced 4 trains/hour Overground train service to Crystal Palacebrings Canary Wharf to just 25-30 minutes from Crystal Palace, and may well ex-acerbate this problem as the economy recovers.

3.1.6 Control of parking in the CP Triangle and its surrounding areas should be gov-erned by a uniformly-applied policy which defines matters, such as

Scales of charges and times; Payment system; Signage and road markings; Enforcement and penalties; ...any others?;

and which takes full and fair account of user groups differing interests. For exam-

ple residents should be entitled to free overnight parking adjacent to their homesin the terraced roads. An agreed, uniformly-applied and policed, policy would, of course, remove all possibilities for incidents such as those reportedly occurring inLedbury Road W11, where drivers parking on (say) Chelseas side of the road, andpurchasing their tickets from the nearest one they can see perhaps on Westmin-sters side become served a Penalty Notice by Chelsea, with no means of re-dress, in consequence . In the context of the Triangles trading activity, this wouldbe a powerful deterrent to repeat visits.

3.1.7 Off-street parking on private land in the CP area currently attracts rentals in therange 60-150 pcm, as may be seen from the following:http://www.yourparkingspace.co.uk/crystal-palace-parking-spaces-and-garages.html This could be taken into account in formulating a market value pricing stru cturefor publicly-provided long-term parking.

3.2 Short-term improvement possibilities

3.2.1 Elimination of the right-turn permission at the junction between Coxwell Roadand Westow Street, perhaps with creation of an exit-only exit option from Sains-burys car park onto Bedwardine Road, could free kerbside space alongside theWhite Hart pub for perhaps three cars. This is discussed in more detail in 4.2.2 of this Report.

3.2.2 The parking to the west of Church Road north of the junction with St AubynsRoad could usefully be re-modelled to provide echelon parking similar to that al-ready provided on Farquhar Road at its junction with Crystal Palace Parade. Theset-back forecourt area in front of the parade of shops, although physically acces-sible for public use as a footpath and for trading purposes, may not in fact bededicated for such use: this issue would need resolution to the satisfaction of all

interested parties.
http://www.yourparkingspace.co.uk/crystal-palace-parking-spaces-and-garages.htmlhttp://www.yourparkingspace.co.uk/crystal-palace-parking-spaces-and-garages.htmlhttp://www.yourparkingspace.co.uk/crystal-palace-parking-spaces-and-garages.htmlhttp://www.yourparkingspace.co.uk/crystal-palace-parking-spaces-and-garages.htmlhttp://www.yourparkingspace.co.uk/crystal-palace-parking-spaces-and-garages.html


9/26



3.2.3 Arrangements and kerbside space allocations for deliveries to traders premisesshould be reviewed in the light of traders experience and impact on traffic flows.For example, the Report Author s observations of beer deliveries to the WhiteHart and The Alma pubs suggest possible adverse effects on traffic flow along

Church Road at peak times, and the possibilities for agreeing the times of regulardeliveries (with provision of appropriate portable signage) should be examined.

3.2.4 The existence of the car park at Sainsburys should be made visible by means of on- street signage at suitable locations, complete with spaces/full indication justsouth of the Coxwell Road junction. On introduction of charging, an appropriateform of proof of having parked' should incorporated into the system in such away that bona- fide Sainsburys customers become rebated for the first hour (say)on checkout or exit. This may require development if a proprietary system is notcurrently available.

3.2.5 A significant amount of parking space for commuters can be created by re-modelling the road layout to the west of Gipsy Hill station. The present configura-tion is that Sainsbury Road (from the Report Author s memory originally the a c-cess road to a railway goods yard) runs from the residential area (formerly thegoods yard) parallel with Alexandra Drive to adjacent junctions with Gipsy Hill justto the south of the station entrance. By creating a junction between these roadsat the almost right-angle bend in Alexandra Drive, the two lightly-used stretchesof road could be replaced by just one, leaving space available to develop as park-ing; and simplifying the junction with Gipsy Hill as an additional benefit.

3.2.6 There appear to be possibilities for improving vehicular access to existing off-street spaces around the Triangle. Two examples are: the area to the rear of theWestow House pub; and the Alma Place area. This topic is discussed in more de-tail in 7.2 of this Report.

3.3 Long-term development solutions

3.3.1 Crystal Palace station, along with the tunnel junction in front of the station build-ing, in principle, affords an opportunity for development above the railway-

owned lands. This could include not only a substantial amount of parking space,but also possible residential and commercial uses. The architectural design of sucha development would need to complement the existing station buildings sensi-tively, in view of its status as a listed building in a Conservation Area. The ReportAuthor understands that the delay to re-opening the original station ticket hall foruse as such was due to objections on these grounds to details in the proposal;however he now advice from a contractor at site to the effect that the start of work has now been deferred until March 2011. An impression of the finished con-version can be seen athttp://www.crystalpalacecampaign.org/N30_new%20CP%20station.html whichincludes a link to the Planning Application as lodged with LB of Bromley.
http://www.crystalpalacecampaign.org/N30_new%20CP%20station.htmlhttp://www.crystalpalacecampaign.org/N30_new%20CP%20station.html


10/26



Note 1: the Application details include provision of lifts for disabled access. It issuggested that this should be deferred until improved mobility access to the topof Anerley Hill from the station becomes made available, for example by means of the shuttle bus discussed in 5.2.4 below.

Note 2: the railway authorities have a policy under which stations with immedi-ately-adjacent purpose-built parking facilities are named in the form .Parkway and publicised as such. At CP this could appear on the stationbuilding, street signage, and in on-line service information thus:

......this might well be the first such development within the M25.

3.3.2 Air-space above the railway between Gipsy Hill and the tunnel entrance offerspossibilities for development similar to that outlined in 3.3.1 above.

3.3.3 The area to the south of Farquhar Road, at its junction with Crystal Palace Pa-rade (formerly the site of a locomotive turntable), appears entirely suitable fordevelopment as parking using a suitable stack-parking system. Several such sys-tems exist, and for illustrations, see (for example)http://www.architonic.com/pmsht/parksafe-580-whr/1085162 and http://www.architonic.com/pmsht/parksafe-585-whr_proref/1085247 .

Such an approach would be particularly useful in the event of any major devel-

opment on the CP Top Site as a visitor attraction, being inherently secure, andimmediately opposite the main Top Site entrance. It could be incorporated intoa general development of the site for commercial and/or residential purposesthus: http://www.architonic.com/pmsht/levelparker-570-whr_proref/1085163 .The lowest level of such a development could be retained for ongoing use by theBowley Close Rehabilitation Centre and accessed as it is now.
http://www.architonic.com/pmsht/parksafe-580-whr/1085162http://www.architonic.com/pmsht/parksafe-580-whr/1085162http://www.architonic.com/pmsht/parksafe-585-whr_proref/1085247http://www.architonic.com/pmsht/parksafe-585-whr_proref/1085247http://www.architonic.com/pmsht/levelparker-570-whr_proref/1085163http://www.architonic.com/pmsht/levelparker-570-whr_proref/1085163http://www.architonic.com/pmsht/levelparker-570-whr_proref/1085163http://www.architonic.com/pmsht/parksafe-585-whr_proref/1085247http://www.architonic.com/pmsht/parksafe-580-whr/1085162


11/26



Section 4: Traffic control and pedestrian safety

4.1 Existing situation

Summary to follow

4.2 Traffic control issues

4.2.1 There is a perception that speeds on the Church Road leg of the Triangle areregularly exceeded by significant amounts. It is possible that in part this is be-cause the sidewalk on the east side is relatively narrow, leading to subconsciousperceptions of personal risk (from moving traffic) that traffic is travelling fasterthan it actually is. The Report Authors observation s of a speed warning sign on

Church Road southbound, south of the Queens Hotel, suggest that althoughspeed limit violations on this straight and level section of the road do occur, theyare not generally gross violations. As the Triangle area is home to a significantnumber of elderly people, and also hosts many pedestrians by virtue of its na-ture and purpose, a speed limit of 20mph should be considered more appropri-ate for the Triangle, and should be enforced with the aid of Automatic Number-plate Recognition techniques in cases of gross violation if considered appropri-ate.

4.2.2 The existence of the short two-way section at the south end of Westow Streetshould be justified by vehicle counting means, with a view to substituting anexit-only facility for cars and light vans onto Bedwardine Road, whence such traf-fic could proceed instead to join Beulah Hill a short distance north of the ChurchRoad junction at All Saints Church. This would permit longer periods of time forsouthbound traffic from the Triangle. It would also eliminate the potentially haz-ardous situation outside the White Hart pub (essentially due to lack of adequateyellow box road marking s there) where the northbound junction becomesblocked by right-turning traffic out of sight of a signal.

4.3 Pedestrian safety issues

4.3.1 The shopping area by definition attracts many pedestrians, and so should beconsidered an area where pedestrian priority issues should be engineered -in. Inparticular, this means that relevant traffic management guidance documents is-sued by the DfT should be used as precisely that guidance and not used as atick-box tool in order to avoid use of local observation combined with commonsense and sound safety principles.

4.3.2 There is a perception that the pedestrian crossing buttons on the junction sig-nals are a placebo having no effect on a presumed -to-be pre-programmed tim-

ing sequence. It is well-known that people who feel they have been kept waitingfor too long conclude that the system is faulty and therefore take chances a


12/26



potential accident risk. The Report Author has on occasion witnessed pedestriannear miss incidents at the CP Parade junction which could be attributed to pre-cisely this cause. A written statement on the operational settings and routinein-spection/ testing frequency for these installations, and evidence that the h umanfactor perception of delay on human behaviour has been adequately consid-ered, should be placed in the public domain in order to provide public assurance.The installations , particularly at the Triangles three principal junctions, shouldbe modified to include countdown timers visible to the pedestrians making useof the facilities, as an assurance to users that the installation has not become de-fective. This technology already exists.

4.3.3 All-green pedestrian phasing is needed at the junctions, so that traffic is totallystopped and pedestrians can make any crossing option without interruption.This has for some time been the case at the crossing outside Brixton Under-ground station, and was recently introduced at Oxford Circus with the firm sup-

port of Mayor Johnson: see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8337341.stm .It appeared to be standard practice in Washington DC, USA, when the ReportAuthor was there in 1976, so is not novel.

4.3.4 A pedestrian crossing o n Church Road at the junction with St Aubyns Roadshould be provided in order to provide convenient and safe facilities for nearbyresidents in sheltered housing to reach the shopping areas. It would also intro-duce a degree of calming to the traffic flow along that section of road.

4.3.5 The cobbled access entrances to Victory Place and similar back -land locationsare not disabled -friendly to wheelchair users. (Authors note: my mother was awheelchair user, so understood this well! - KCR) They should be replaced withmore suitable materials, or at least planed smooth, as a matter of urgency, toremove the incentive to carers to take their charges into the vehicle carriagewayto spare them discomfort, or else cause needless delay to vehicular trafficemerging from these turnings (by proceeding very slowly over the cobbled sec-tion) if they do not.

4.3.6 The parking spots on the west side of Church Road between St Aubyns Roadand the White Hart junction could usefully be transferred to the opposite side of the road: this would mitigate the pedestrians subjective perception, from thenarrow east sidewalk, of excessive speed discussed in 4.2.1 above; and also af-ford longer sight-lines to drivers exiting from residential premises and the carrepairers in Alma Place so reducing collision risks at that junction.

4.3.7 Consideration should be given to installing a mirror at a suitable point oppositethe entrance to The Secret Garden on Coxwell Road, to afford drivers proceed-ing towards the car park entrance an earlier awareness of pedestrians waiting tocross towards Westow Park.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8337341.stmhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8337341.stmhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8337341.stmhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8337341.stm


13/26



Section 5: Tramlink extension

5.1 Current position

5.1.1 The proposal to extend the Tramlink network to Crystal Palace has been the subject of extensive public consultation which culminated in a recommendation thatan extension should be constructed alongside the existing railway, across AnerleyRoad at street level, and thence through the western side of CP Park to terminatealongside the existing bus terminal on Crystal Palace Parade. The formal Consulta-tion Report was published in May 2007, and this was followed shortly afterwardsby the publication of a brief newsletter by LB Croydon. The Executive Summary of the Consultation Report and the newsletter can be seen athttp://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/executive_summary.pdf and the newsletter can be seen at

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/Croydon-tramlink-newsletter-0707.pdf . The Upper Norwood Joint Library has obtained a copy of the full Consultation Re-port in PDF format, and the Report Author can forward copies by email to inter-ested parties on request.

5.1.2 TfL ceased development work on the project two years ago due to funding con-straints. As of this issue of the Manifesto, there is currently no definitive informa-tion regarding when (or indeed if) the CP extension project is likely to be resumed.(conflicting information or at least interpretations of recent information existsonline I will try to resolve -- KCR)

5.2 The Chambers view

5.2.1 The Chamber strongly supports the principle of extending Tramlink to Crystal Pal-ace as outlined in the above-referenced documents, but fully understands theneed for fiscal restraint in the short term.

5.2.2 The Chamber considers that a sensible first step would be to extend the line asdescribed for Option 2 as set out in the above-mentioned Consultation Report,but to terminate adjacent to Crystal Palace station so giving good interchangewith Overground and National Rail services. If it is possible to accommodate a sin-gle tram track alongside the existing railway (thus passing beneath Anerley Roadinstead of crossing at street level as the above-referenced Executive Summaryappears to suggest), then this should be evaluated as a possible variant, to elimi-nate need for a signal-controlled tramway crossing on Anerley Road with its asso-ciated costs and impact on vehicular traffic flows.

5.2.3 This approach has several advantages: Preliminary engineering studies are complete, hence a fast start should be

achievable; Possible local opposition to land take within the park would be avoided

pending detailed reconsideration (see 5.2.7 below);
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/executive_summary.pdfhttp://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/executive_summary.pdfhttp://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/Croydon-tramlink-newsletter-0707.pdfhttp://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/Croydon-tramlink-newsletter-0707.pdfhttp://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/Croydon-tramlink-newsletter-0707.pdfhttp://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/Croydon-tramlink-newsletter-0707.pdfhttp://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/Croydon-tramlink-newsletter-0707.pdfhttp://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/executive_summary.pdf


14/26



Much of the route lies on railway-owned land, which minimises the needfor compulsory purchase and related matters. It was formerly used by BRsSouthern Region as stabling for rolling stock ready for peak-hour use;

Excellent interchange with existing rail transport is secured; and It supports t he Mayors aspirations regarding the creation of a north -south

Tramlink axis.

This last aspiration was expressed in 2009 and is reported in a number of sources,for example http://www.railstaff.co.uk/FeaturedArticles/railstaff/view/78 ) andshould be can then be evaluated in more depth (see 5.2.4 et seq. below).

5.2.4 The Crystal Palace Triangle are a can be conveniently linked to this by a shuttlebus service from the station forecourt, up Anerley Hill, along Church Road andWestow Street, down to Gipsy Hill station, back up to Westow Hill and thence toCrystal Palace station, calling at all the existing bus stops en route . This can be eas-ily and cheaply set up, and excellent for local residents in the immediately-surrounding area wishing to reach the Triangle area and bus terminal for onwardtransport connections and leisure purposes as well as locally-resident rail com-muters. Consideration would be needed regarding the fare to be charged (for theshort hop to the Triangle area) , and to hastening the installation Countdownreal time service information displays at all bus stops within the area.

5.2.5 It is considered that the tram stop shown at Anerley Road in the LB of Cs News-letter would be better located to the west near the foot of Mowbray Road to bet-ter serve the residential area there, and also the Harris Academy Crystal Palace.An additional stop should be considered near Warminster Road/Norwood Lake,also for residential use along with recreational visits to the Norwood Lake area.

5.2.6 The Report Author recalls hearing that National Rail (NR) judged the CP-Beckenham Junction half-hourly service to be under-patronised (Authors note:definitely so, judging from recent personal use KCR), and judged that the trainpaths could be more profitably granted to the incumbent operator (Southern) forenhanced services via Norwood Junction alternative destinations via Croydon. Asubstitute tram service between CP and Beckenham Junction could prove signifi-cantly more attractive to local residents in view of the number of local stops enroute thus made available, along with a significantly greater frequency of service.

Further study of this possibility is recommended.

5.2.7 At a later date, as more significant amounts of funding become available, Tramlinkcould be extended northwards from CP Station , in line with Mayor Johnsons pu b-licly-voiced wish to see a Tramlink north -south axis, as fo llows:

In cut -and- cover construction to a stop beneath the existing bus terminal,perhaps with passage for pedestrians alongside the track for a direct undercover, interchange with the CP rail services. A purpose-designed bus/tram in-terchange station, incorporating passenger facilities such as a covered waitingarea, ticket sales office, a newsagent, and public conveniences, could then bedeveloped at a later date in step with development of the CP Park itself.

Then underneath CP Parade and onto Bowley Close (formerly the SE&C Rail-
http://www.railstaff.co.uk/FeaturedArticles/railstaff/view/78http://www.railstaff.co.uk/FeaturedArticles/railstaff/view/78http://www.railstaff.co.uk/FeaturedArticles/railstaff/view/78http://www.railstaff.co.uk/FeaturedArticles/railstaff/view/78


15/26



ways CP High Level station ) for a short length of street running; Thence northwards through the two surviving ex-SE&CR tunnels to a new sta-

tion at or near the site of the former Upper Sydenham station between thetunnels;

Thence through mainly r ecreational woodland walk areas following the orig i-nal route via Lordship Lane and Honor Oak , with pedestrian -friendly runningrules and signage, and perhaps with the track laid in grass as is common prac-tice overseas in such locations;

Thence by street running through the now built-up residential area to thelines original junction at Nunhead;

And finally, trackside space permitting, alongside the existing railway to ter-minate at Peckham Rye, giving interchange with the Overground Phase 2 ex-tension as well as existing NR services.

Note 1: disposal of excavated spoil from the tunnel section could be convenientlyeffected by use for landscaping works within the Park, if found uncontaminatedby toxic residues from the 1936 fire.

Note 2: the suggested pedestrian access alongside the tram track does not repre-sent a particularly unusual distance, compared with underground transfer dis-tances between lines at (for example) Bank/Monument and Waterloo.

Note 3: bats are understood to be resident in one of the former CP High Leveltunnels: if so, and contrary to popular belief, these can legally be relocated to anequivalent site, provided laid-down requirements are satisfied. The disused High-gate High Level tunnel adjacent to Highgate Wood, north-east of Archway Road,could be considered suitable provided the bat species present in the CP tunnelsare acceptable company for the species already resident at Highgate.

Note 4: the proposed street-running section towards Nunhead would serve aresidential area apparently poorly served by buses, similar to Addington wheresignificant local opposition to Tramlink was encountered but where, now, closeto Tramlink is seen as a strong selling point by estate agen ts.

Note 5: it is suggested that the views and support of this by Val Shawcross, a GLAmember, should be actively sought at an early opportunity:http://www.valshawcross.com .

5.2.8 The section from the proposed Harrington Road junction up to the proximity of the Crystal Palace station forecourt has already undergone preliminary feasibilityevaluation, and so the detailed design and construction of this particular sectioncould in principle commence immediately, given a go -ahead and an assurance of funding. It is suggested that this first stage should be progressed urgently. Thisproposal may necessitate some reconsideration of the arrangements currentlyforeseen for the station entrance in connection with the already-open East Lon-don Line extension.http://www.crystalpalacecampaign.org/N30_new%20CP%20station.html :this includes a direct link to the formal Planning Application dossier where the

proposal is set out in detail. The Author understands from a recent site contactthat commencement of the station works has been deferred until March 2011.
http://www.valshawcross.com/http://www.valshawcross.com/http://www.crystalpalacecampaign.org/N30_new%20CP%20station.htmlhttp://www.crystalpalacecampaign.org/N30_new%20CP%20station.htmlhttp://www.crystalpalacecampaign.org/N30_new%20CP%20station.htmlhttp://www.valshawcross.com/


16/26



5.3 Funding

5.3.1 To date, no consideration appears to have been given to the flotation of bonds as

a means of securing funding, or partial funding, for possible extensions to Tram-link. The reasons for this omission are not currently clear. The words close toTramlink now regularly feature in estate agents advertising where applicableshowing that proximity to the line is a strong selling point which attracts a pricepremiumk. This factor requires evaluation and quantification, and the NationalAssociation of Estate Agents ( http://www.naea.co.uk/default.aspx .) could be agood starting point for requesting views on the topic.

5.3.2 In the current economic climate, fixed interest investments are an attractive op-tion for many savers as com pared with todays base bank rates: resident s close tothe proposed route (especially if contemplating a re-mortgage), or planning to

move to the area, might well consider such an investment an appropriate vehiclefor a proportion of their savings, given sufficient assurance that the extensionwould proceed without delay.

5.3.3 Piecemeal extensions to the network, as happens now, are an expensive methodof achieving expansion, because project teams disperse elsewhere as disparateprojects reach completion, and must be rebuilt from scratch for each new phase.A rolling programme of expansions should be instituted, and regularly reviewedfor approvals, in order to retain core experience and thus ensure cost-effectiveproject execution.
http://www.naea.co.uk/default.aspxhttp://www.naea.co.uk/default.aspxhttp://www.naea.co.uk/default.aspxhttp://www.naea.co.uk/default.aspx


17/26



Section 6: Bus services

6.1 Existing services

6.1.1 Existing bus services to and via the CP Triangle area are shown athttp://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/gettingaround/maps/buses/pdf/crystalpalace-2063.pdf In addition, routes 196, 468, and N68 serve All Saints Church at the south end of Church Road.

6.1.2 Routes 249 and 432 originally terminated at the CP bus terminal, bu t became ex-tended to a small bus stand and crew rest-stop area in Anerley Station Road adja-cent to the station. This occurred at about the same time as bus services generallywere substantially enhanced under the previous Mayoralty, which may have en-

gendered excessive congestion in the terminal at CP Parade and provided the i m-perative for this change. A significant and perhaps unforeseen benefit (as ob-served subjectively) is that the route from around Anerley Station to the Trianglearea now has a significantly more frequent bus service than existed before thischange.

6.2 Enhancements for evaluation

6.2.1 Consideration should be given to extending some routes, in similar manner toroutes 249 and 432, to terminate at crew rest-stops situated at similar distances

from CP Parade down other hills, for example South Norwood Hill (to NorwoodJunction Station, perhaps), and Central Hill and Elder Road (to West Norwood Sta-tion). This would give improved accessibility to the Triangle area, and stops enroute , to residents and commuters alike. This could release bus stand capacity atthe terminal on CP Parade for additional scheduled services and coach drop-off/pick-up facilities to serve events in CP Park and adjacent areas.

6.2.2 All bus services serving the Triangle area should be routed through the CP busterminal, to facilitate route interchanges. This would eliminate the current user-unfriendly arrangements under which given destinations, for example Brixton(change for Victoria line), are served by more than one route (here, routes 3, 322,and 432, from three separate stops) yet the users themselves are indifferent as towhich one to use but simply wish to catch the first one to come, just as they al-ready can at any intermediate stop between the former Town Hall on AnerleyRoad to Anerley Hill top. Effective implementation of this needs further study, asan exit for buses from the existing terminal directly onto Anerley Hill south of theTriangle area junction might be needed.

6.2.3 It is strongly desirable for destination displays on buses routed via CP to pointsbeyond (such as 249 and 432), should include the words via Crystal Palace in thedestination displays, particularly the ones alongside the entrance doors on the

vehicles near -side for intending boarders to see.
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/gettingaround/maps/buses/pdf/crystalpalace-2063.pdfhttp://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/gettingaround/maps/buses/pdf/crystalpalace-2063.pdfhttp://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/gettingaround/maps/buses/pdf/crystalpalace-2063.pdfhttp://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/gettingaround/maps/buses/pdf/crystalpalace-2063.pdfhttp://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/gettingaround/maps/buses/pdf/crystalpalace-2063.pdf


18/26



6.2.4 The traffic signalling system at the Anerley Hill junction should be extended topermit bus priority exit from the terminal if reasonably practicable, with appr o-priate enforcement in the event of obstruction by other road users.

6.3 Availability of real -time service information

6.3.1 The long-established Countdown electronic display system showing next busto... information at bus stops is in course of roll-out across the London bus net-work, and is being upgraded to a more accurate system using the GPS. We needto press for this system to be installed at the bus terminal and at all stops withinthe Triangle area. As a first step, TfL should be asked for an outline of their for-ward planning in this respect. An illustration of a Countdown installation can beseen at http://www.itsdocs.fhwa.dot.gov/JPODOCS/REPTS_TE/13845_files/image011.jpg . Ex-amples are already in service at All Saints Church (southbound) and at PengeCrooked Billet (northbound). Similar systems are used by Tramlink and all railwayoperators.

6.3.2 In principle the countdown display system can be made available as a subscrip-tion service to any organisation or individual requiring it, via a broadband link even in their home. This has potential for local restaurateurs and publicans tohave it wired in to their establishments much as Wi -Fi internet access is nowprovided in many pubs as a service to patrons which encourages patronage. Anexample of this use already exists in Wetherspoons bar at Victoria Station (at thehead of Platforms 9- 11, which serve CP), in the form of displays slaved from themain station departure boards so that patrons can see from the comfort of thebar when their desired train is available for boarding. The Report Author knows of no technical reason why similar facilities could not be quickly provided in, for ex-ample, in The George, a Wetherspoons pub close to the tram stop in GeorgeStreet. All possibilities of this nature require evaluation.

6.4 Longer-term issues

6.4.1 A longer-term aim must be development of a purpose-built bus station on Crystal

Palace Parade (as distinct from the simple terminal which exists at present), per-haps along the general lines of the one at West Croydon, as already outlined in5.2.7 earlier. This aspect would become of more urgent importance should therebe major developments of, or within, CP Park likely to become major attractions.Local traders could then be encouraged to take up franchises for passenger ser-vices outlets such as a news outlet, for example.
http://www.itsdocs.fhwa.dot.gov/JPODOCS/REPTS_TE/13845_files/image011.jpghttp://www.itsdocs.fhwa.dot.gov/JPODOCS/REPTS_TE/13845_files/image011.jpghttp://www.itsdocs.fhwa.dot.gov/JPODOCS/REPTS_TE/13845_files/image011.jpghttp://www.itsdocs.fhwa.dot.gov/JPODOCS/REPTS_TE/13845_files/image011.jpg


19/26



Section 7: Amenity issues in the Triangle

7.1 The built environment: existing situation

7.1.1 Scrutiny of the Triangle area as shown by Google/Maps, combined with the Re-port Authors local knowledge, reveals a number of areas and access ways be-tween and behind the built premises. The standard of general care of these areasis inconsistent and generally poor. In some cases the spaces are sufficient, givenappropriate rehabilitation, to permit a limited amount of vehicular access whichwould be of particular benefit to the adjacent traders for their personal or busi-ness use. Col lectively these spaces can be termed backlands.

7.2 The Triangles backlands

7.2.1 A survey is needed to identify all backland areas and access routes. A scale planshould then be produced, identifying the associated freeholders, leaseholders andtenants, along with any extant covenants regarding them. This should be corre-lated with Ordnance Survey mapping and Land Registry records, as far as practi-cable, to achieve good accuracy. This should be achievable by a co-ordinated localDIY/self-help effort at minimum cost.

7.2.2 The result of the survey should permit objective formulation of a plan to maximisethe number of additional parking spaces available, particularly for t raders drop -off and pick-up uses. One such potential site exists north of Westow Hill at the

junction with CP Parade behind existing trading premises, to which potential vehi-cle access exists alongside the Westow House pub.

7.2.3 Additional potential gains from this would be: locally-improved access for emergency services; evacuation routes from premises; deterrence of petty crime and antisocial conduct; improved access and parking for maintenance activities; and possible off-street siting of refuse and r ecycling wheelies.

7.2.4 Larger areas, such as Alma Place, Victory Place, and adjacent to Haynes Lane,should be evaluated for possible resurfacing in their entirety to encourage usesappropriate to the area and for general aesthetic improvement. There may bescope for commercial sponsorship of such initiatives.

7.3 Other amenity issues

7.3.1 The public conveniences on CP Parade should be reinstated, and the practicalityof reopening the one outside The Alma should be examined.

7.3.2 The entrance to the public conveniences behind the Phoenix Centre is not sign-


20/26



posted in any way. A signboard on the flank wall facing northwards across thegreen, combined with a suitable finger on the Westow Street lamp pole nearby,would be sufficient to mitigate the original design error of siting the entrance in asecluded location unobservable by the general passing public, and so potentiallybecoming frequented by undesirables as a consequence.

7.3.3 The Triangles s treet furniture and signage requires a general review in order toidentify opportunities for aesthetic improvement. For example, at the ChurchRoad entrance to Westow Park, there is a bus stop, a lighting pole, a CCTV camerapole, and a turn left sign, each on its own pole, which would be better combinedinto a single installation. A similar point applies at the entrance to Alma Place,where there should be no particular technical difficulty in mounting the signageon the adjacent buildings. Maintenance costs, for example painting, would be re-duced by this approach.

7.3.4 There are several locations in the Triangle area where the line and level of thecarriageway and inappropriate siting of drainage gullies combine to cause sub-stantial amounts of rainwater to accumulate undrained. In most cases, particu-larly on Church Road adjacent to The Cambridge and opposite the junction withStoney Lane, these pose a serious danger to pedestrians in frosty weather whenvehicle-induced splashing freezes on the sidewalk. The responsible authoritiesshould investigate these urgently and take appropriate corrective action, in orderto minimise risk of personal injury claims against them by members of the publicwith its the associated negative media exposure. (a list of the worst sites can becompiled from local knowledge)

7.3.5 The Georgian Dining Rooms behind the White Hart should be examined by an im-partial but competent party to establish the likely cost of rehabilitating it for ap-propriate uses, ideally as an attraction to visitors. This would provide a soundstarting-point for discussion of the sites future use provided the impartiality of the examination is assured for the reassurance of strongly-held local feeling. Thepossibility of dismantling it carefully and re-erecting it on an alternative site perhaps as an adjunct to the Crystal Palace Museum on Anerley Hill could provea basis for a solution broadly acceptable to all parties.

7.3.6 All junctions used by pedestrians should be reviewed and provided with droppedkerbs wherever these do not already exist. Instances where dropped kerbs existbut are no longer required (for example at the site of the former Farmers Wifepetrol station at 125 Church Road) should be reviewed and logged for removalwhen major works present a suitable window of opportunity.

7.4 Funding

7.4.1 It is recognised that the current national economic situation does not permit ex-tensive public expenditures of this nature; therefore the respective LAs main role

for the time being can only be as sources of advice and guidance in accordance


21/26



with a co-ordinated policy statement.

7.4.2 All possibilities for assisting individual owners and tenants by way of improvementgrants and commercial sponsorship should be examined, regularly reviewed, andgiven appropriate targeted publicity.


22/26



Section 8: Potentially related issues

8.1 Development of Crystal Palace Park

8.1.1 Report Authors note: the exact status of the park as Metropolitan Open Land andthe associated rights, powers, and responsibilities over decision-making currentlyappears unclear. We need to see a clear exposition of the roles of the LondonDevelopment Authority, the Greater London Authority, the Mayoralty, LB Bromley(and perhaps others) in this in order to understand the decision- making chain of command and to secure confidence in the planning processes being applied. Thissub-head - hopefully - will clarify things once known. The current Master Plan forthe CP Park should be firmly resisted until this point is unambiguously clarified. -KCR

8.1.2 The current Master plan appears to have no more than a moderate degree of lo-cal support. However, there are strongly-held views on the use of part of the landfor housing (in particular proposals for large apartment blocks on what is statuto-rily defined as Metropolitan Open Land), on the closure of the Caravan Site, andon the absence of planning for any clear defining attraction to draw large nu m-bers of visitors from far afield to local economic benefit. (well -intentioned, buttoo bland and reduces the public amenity too much sums it up, I think. KCR)

8.1.3 Proposals have been made for a commercially- backed development of the TopSite comprising principally a facility modelled on the original Crystal Palace, sui t-able for similar uses to the original, and which seems regarded as generally moreharmonious with the park as a whole than the original would be in todays co n-text. This proposal secured the unanimous support of the Chamber when last dis-cussed, not least because it and its proposed uses - was seen as a strong attrac-tion to visitors throughout London (and beyond) along with their potential spend-ing power. It is considered that, if there are any impediments to this proposal be-ing allowed to proceed purely on its commercial merits (for example arising fromthe comments in 8.1.1 above), positive steps should be taken urgently to elimi-nate these.

8.1.4 The worlds first -ever television transmissions were made from the south tower of Crystal Palace in 1934. See http://www.bairdtelevision.com/crystalpalace.html for more of the history of this. It seems appropriate, therefore, to explore thepossibilities for establishing a Museum of Television within the park, perhapsalongside todays transmit ter, as a commercially-oriented visitor attraction. Po-tential sources of support for this include the Macquarie Bank (parent of Arqiva,the transmitter operator); the National Museums of Science and Industry alongwith their National Media Museum subsidiary: see

http://www.nmsi.ac.uk/nmsipages/contactnmsi.asp and http://www.nationalmediamuseum.org.uk/

and Gerry Wells, curator of the Vintage Wireless Museum maintained locally

at his home: see http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-11035689
http://www.bairdtelevision.com/crystalpalace.htmlhttp://www.bairdtelevision.com/crystalpalace.htmlhttp://www.nmsi.ac.uk/nmsipages/contactnmsi.asphttp://www.nmsi.ac.uk/nmsipages/contactnmsi.asphttp://www.nationalmediamuseum.org.uk/http://www.nationalmediamuseum.org.uk/http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-11035689http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-11035689http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-11035689http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-11035689http://www.nationalmediamuseum.org.uk/http://www.nmsi.ac.uk/nmsipages/contactnmsi.asphttp://www.bairdtelevision.com/crystalpalace.html


23/26



Such an attraction could, for example, by including modern cameras installed ontop of the tower with user-controlled remote pan/tilt/zoom features, permit mu-seum visitors to download views from the top onto memory sticks via pay by theminute sessions, rather like an internet cafe. It could also incorporate the existingCrystal Palace Museum, suitably expanded and developed, initially as an adjunctbut perhaps expanded later to showcase the many famous people who had rootsin, or connections with, the area. All local special-interest groups should be con-sulted regarding this.

8.1.5 Proposals to permit building additional housing on the site should be strictly lim-ited to ensure that there is no land take beyond that originally in use for housingprior to the building of the original Crystal Palace (for example to replace build-ings destroyed by enemy action in WW2); and provided there are strict controlsto ensure that any such development is architecturally in harmony with the exist-ing housing, particularly regarding external style and scale.

8.1.6 The Carava n Site should remain in use as such as it provides accommodation forpotential additional patronage of trading establishments in the Triangle area; aswell as being appropriate for camping visitors to London as a whole, given thegood public transport connections available within a short walk.

8.1.7 Consideration should be given to the rehabilitation of the motor sports circuit forappropriate events, such as the starting point for vintage vehicle meets (see, forexample, http://www.hcvs.co.uk/ and http://www.london2brighton.org.uk/ andconcours delegance of historic vehicles at these and other events.

8.2 Cinema campaign

8.2.1 The Kingsway International Christian Centre (KICC) has encountered strong localopposition to its proposal to change the use of the Granada building at 25Church Road, and planning consent for the change of use has been refused. Nosignificant activity at the site has since been visible. The Planning Application canbe seen athttp://planning.bromley.gov.uk/PublicAccess/tdc/DcApplication/application_d etailview.aspx?caseno=KONZRYBT0GG00

Selected online references from the Croydon side are athttp://www.croydon.gov.uk/contents/documents/planningdocs/802256/888595/8.1_25_Church_Road_SE19 andhttp://planning.croydon.gov.uk/DocOnline/64537_1.pdf

8.2.2 It seems worthwhile to attempt to broker a deal between KICC and a cinema op-erator as a Joint Venture (JV) within which KICC would secure use of the main fa-cility for church use for 2 days/week as proposed in their original planning appli-cation, and the cinema operator for entertainment purposes for 5 days per week.This would bring the building back into full-time beneficial use, to the benefit of
http://www.hcvs.co.uk/http://www.hcvs.co.uk/http://www.hcvs.co.uk/http://www.london2brighton.org.uk/http://planning.bromley.gov.uk/PublicAccess/tdc/DcApplication/application_detailview.aspx?caseno=KONZRYBT0GG00http://planning.bromley.gov.uk/PublicAccess/tdc/DcApplication/application_detailview.aspx?caseno=KONZRYBT0GG00http://planning.bromley.gov.uk/PublicAccess/tdc/DcApplication/application_detailview.aspx?caseno=KONZRYBT0GG00http://www.croydon.gov.uk/contents/documents/planningdocs/802256/888595/8.1_25_Church_Road_SE19http://www.croydon.gov.uk/contents/documents/planningdocs/802256/888595/8.1_25_Church_Road_SE19http://www.croydon.gov.uk/contents/documents/planningdocs/802256/888595/8.1_25_Church_Road_SE19http://planning.croydon.gov.uk/DocOnline/64537_1.pdfhttp://planning.croydon.gov.uk/DocOnline/64537_1.pdfhttp://planning.croydon.gov.uk/DocOnline/64537_1.pdfhttp://www.croydon.gov.uk/contents/documents/planningdocs/802256/888595/8.1_25_Church_Road_SE19http://www.croydon.gov.uk/contents/documents/planningdocs/802256/888595/8.1_25_Church_Road_SE19http://planning.bromley.gov.uk/PublicAccess/tdc/DcApplication/application_detailview.aspx?caseno=KONZRYBT0GG00http://planning.bromley.gov.uk/PublicAccess/tdc/DcApplication/application_detailview.aspx?caseno=KONZRYBT0GG00http://www.london2brighton.org.uk/http://www.hcvs.co.uk/


24/26



both Joint Venturers and of the community as a whole. Ancillary functions such asthose proposed by KICC could in principle co-exist with those provided by the cin-ema operator, especially if the site of adjacent lock-up shops (currently occupiedby three billboards) became re-developed for that purpose. Report A uthors note:the KICC planning application included a transport impact report, but I need to re-check whether it addressed likely congregation sizes or simply their own antici-pated staffing levels. If the latter, then it must be considered invalid and void asan assessment of transport impact on the current situation. (this apples to re-opening it as a cinema too, especially if the old practice of continuous sho wing go in when you want to and leave when youve seen it all isnt fo llowed). -KCR

8.2.3 The former Century cinema site, also on Church Road, appears to have beenabandoned. Its current status should be investigated: if, for example, any planningapplication for the site has become voided by lapse of time, then the presentowners should be encouraged (if necessary by a potential exercise of compulsory

purchase orders) to dispose of the site to a purchaser willing and able to rede-velop it as an entertainment venue. This could ensure its prompt return to benefi-cial economic use, bringing associated trade to the CP area along with directrevenue (as business rates) to the controlling LA and a further enhancement tothe area. The Report Author s searches of LB Bromleys online planning search f a-cility (which gives the history of all planning applications made since 2001) havefailed to locate any record of planning applications relating to this site. LB Bromleyshould be urged to investigate this in more depth.

8.2.4 A suggestion has been aired to the effect that space exists to the rear of the Up-

per Norwood Joint Library which in principle could be developed as a cinema. Thisshould be examined in more detail as regards feasibility and finance.

8.3 Crystal Palace Subway

8.3.1 The subway beneath Crystal Palace Parade is a unique feature of CP, currentlyclosed to the public, and reportedly in need of some repair. It is a listed building(grade 2? - KCR)

8.3.2 The subway is potentially an excellent venue for events such as entertainment

gigs, art exhibitions, and fashion shows, on a commercial basis. The followingpoints are worthy of note:

Plentiful bus services are available outside for patrons use, and train se r-vices exist a short distance away;

Noise nuisance in the surrounding area would be minimal; The acoustics are probably very favourable for some forms of entertain-

ment (think Liverpools Cavern Club here ); There is a clear historical connection with the original Crystal Palace itself; The access stairway pit and nearby area east of CP Parade could be re-

stored and developed for necessary support functions such as the entrance

foyer, cloakro oms/WCs, bar, admission control, backstage accommod a-tion, electrical room, phone switchboard, and stores areas; possibly by a


25/26



concessionaire; The fabric of the building is effectively fireproof; and The former station access on the west side could readily be remodelled as a

fire exit, to satisfy current statutory requirements.

8.4 Crystal Palace FC

8.4.1 The future of Crystal Palace FC has been the subject of significant coverage in lo-cal media, along with statements by LB Croydon that their existing ground at Sel-hurst Park must remain in use by the Club unless any potential developer couldensure the C lubs long-term tenure of a ground in or close to the Borough. LB of Cappears to have taken a consistent and firm stand on this, see for examplehttp://www.croydonguardian.co.uk/sport/localsport/8337761.Council_would_allow_Crystal_Palace_football_ground_sale/ Several similar references exist online.

8.4.2 It is a matter of historical record that professional soccer has been played in Crys-tal Palace Park in the past, see, for examplehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1896_FA_Cup_Final andhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystal_Palace_National_Sports_Centre

8.4.2 The possibility of establishing a permanent ground for CPFC in CP Park should beexamined carefully taking note of the historical perspective together with the fol-

lowing: Public transport facilities serving CP are considerably more comprehensivethan those available at Selhurst Park, and it seems reasonable to assumethat a greater proportion of the gate would therefore make use of theseinstead of driving to Selhurst (an essentially residential area) and taking upkerbside space;

The Clubs provisions for medical support on match days, in case of sport -related injuries, could to some extent be merged with those necessarilyprovided at the National Sports Centre;

CPs many restaurants and bars would profit from increased turnover in theperiod following home fixtures;

Rival clubs fans attending CPFCs home fixtures and unfamiliar with thegrounds location could head for CP as the target destination without fin d-ing themselves some way from the ground itself as they do now, some-thing Report Author has occasionally observed himself when asked locallyfor directions to the ground;

Parking for visiting fans arriving as coach parties is in principle availablewithin the park on surviving sections of the motor sports circuit;

The Selhurst Park site would be freed for permitted development, the pro-ceeds from which would form a substantial contribution to the cost of thenew ground.
http://www.croydonguardian.co.uk/sport/localsport/8337761.Council_would_allow_Crystal_Palace_football_ground_sale/http://www.croydonguardian.co.uk/sport/localsport/8337761.Council_would_allow_Crystal_Palace_football_ground_sale/http://www.croydonguardian.co.uk/sport/localsport/8337761.Council_would_allow_Crystal_Palace_football_ground_sale/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1896_FA_Cup_Finalhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1896_FA_Cup_Finalhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystal_Palace_National_Sports_Centrehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystal_Palace_National_Sports_Centrehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystal_Palace_National_Sports_Centrehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1896_FA_Cup_Finalhttp://www.croydonguardian.co.uk/sport/localsport/8337761.Council_would_allow_Crystal_Palace_football_ground_sale/http://www.croydonguardian.co.uk/sport/localsport/8337761.Council_would_allow_Crystal_Palace_football_ground_sale/


26/26


8.5 Other Issues

Any we could usefully add?

Section 9: Potential for promotional campaignsDraft heads to be worked up

9.1: GeneralitiesTopics to review:

Campaign costs and funding (trains, buses...) Discuss with Simon Dobson Needs a clear brand- name for the area: Crystal Palace with an appropriate logo/image used

on all publicity LB Lewishams experience of on-train advertising?

Websites cptraders and crystalpalacelocal Talk up the need for collective self-help like KCR s contact with the proprietors of the forth-coming funfair at the Top Site which resulted in the addition of the new overground train ser-vice to its online promo info at http://www.irvinleisure.co.uk/fairs.php Most of the wordingis KCRs, only slightly amended. Maybe only a mountain goat would agree with the addedgentle stroll up the hill bit, though.

9.2: RailwaysKCR has established preliminary costs for a campaign on the new over ground service and for settingup a national-scale promo website9:3: BusesGeorge F has looked costs of bus advertising9.4: Poster and circular campaignsNeed typical cost information?9.5: Internet Need to work with Tim S on this

Section 10: Conclusions and Recommendations

To be developed

This section should highlight:

what is needed? who can/will do what? what will it cost? how can it be funded? when can it be done? why is it needed?
http://www.irvinleisure.co.uk/fairs.phphttp://www.irvinleisure.co.uk/fairs.phphttp://www.irvinleisure.co.uk/fairs.php

Documents

Crystal Palace & Norwood Chamber of Commerce Transport Paper Draft