Archaeologists campaigning for the environment

Dirty dealings at Crystal Palace?

The London Borough of Bromley has for some years now had a proposal to develop the site of the Crystal Palace, Crystal Palace Parade, London, SE19. The land has been at least contractually sold to London and Regional Properties for �6 million for them to construct a �58 million multiplex and leisure centre. The opposition is enormous and as far as a London Borough is concerned unprecedented. Protesters occupied part of the site and as a result of digging underground tunnels and caves discovered a large quantity of foundations, voids, and artefacts relating to the original building. They were recently evicted and the Council now states that very few artefacts actually exist. This is evidentially just not true. There has been no semblance of compliance with archaeological law with regard to the Grade II*, Metropolitan Open Land bordering Crystal Palace Parade.

PPG16

The Council has failed to comply with most of PPG 16 and in particular paragraphs 18, 19, 21, and 22.

Notably the Council has:

1. failed and continues to fail on an ongoing basis to acknowledge that artefacts relating to the construction, history, and demise of the Crystal Palace still exist under the Crystal Palace Parade site. Robin Cooper, Head of Heritage and Urban Design LB Bromley stated recently: "There is little doubt that there will be some remains of the former building but most unlikely that any artefacts remain." He says this without real knowledge of the below ground situation despite being provided with personal, documentary and photographic evidence. Documentary evidence also exists of radar scans having been made and at least 15 Trial Pits being dug (both undertaken by professional geological survey companies)at various places right across the site, all of which variously showed built brickwork, voids, tiles and other unidentified objects. What visible evidence of these that did exist on the Old Caravan Club site before the eviction of the protesters has now been covered over or destroyed and forgotten about.
2. failed to consider withdrawing permitted development rights so as to allow the Secretary of State's consideration.
3. failed to ensure that developer (London & Regional Properties Ltd) had included in the original or revised planning applications an assessment of the archaeological value of the site
4. failed to instruct the developer to arrange for an archaeological field evaluation to be carried out before a decision on the planning application is taken. The planning decisions were taken by LB Bromley Councillors on the basis of having agreed a consideration of �6 million to be paid to the Council in return for the developer constructing a multiplex leisure development on the site. The historical significance of the site has been treated as secondary
5. failed to obtain from the developer the results of any archaeological field evaluation as none took place and the Council had decided underground artefacts were unlikely to still exist
6. failed to arrange for an Archaeological Environmental Assessment to be carried out
7. failed to include with any Committee minutes, agenda or reports the HISTORICAL ASSESSMENT OF THE SITE OF THE FORMER CRYSTAL PALACE produced by Ken Kiss Acting Curator, Crystal Palace Museum in August 1992. The document is stamped as having been received by the Council on 4 February 1993. A member of the public who requested the document in June 1998 was told that it would be provided on the specific understanding that it was for personal use only and must not be divulged to third parties. Why? A similar assessment by the same author on the park below the Parade site was included with Planning Application 98/0858. Mr Kiss is not a trained (or even untrained) archeologist. The document is ONLY useful in assessing the archaeological value of the site as a desktop paper study. The document should have been produced as part of a full archeaological survey of the site and not just on its own. Furthermore, it has never been updated despite more information information becoming available.

   What the Council did manage to do was to include in the Notification of Grant of Outline Planning Permission dated 29 March 1998 the following: Condition 29: 'The Developer shall afford access at all reasonable times to any person or persons nominated by the Local Planning Authority and shall give him/her or them all reasonable assistance the observe the excavations and to recover and/or record items of interest and finds as circumstances dictate. Any find of archaeological importance or of general historical or architectural interest shall be notified to the Local Planning Authority who will remain owners of any such objects.'

   These are fine words indeed but it is clear that the Council intended and still intends to continue to pay little or no heed to the condition. It is very sad that the whole archaeological history of the site of probably the most significant achievement of the Victorian Age balances on a single lowly condition in a planning document destined to be its own death warrant. The Council made it the 29th Condition out of 34 and only just above those relating to toilets, opening hours and noise. The Council also: failed to serve any such condition upon itself, the Bailiffs, the Police, or the security guards during the March eviction process. During this process archaeological remains were evidently and systematically destroyed, removed, and covered up by persons unknown to prevent any obvious evidence of historical value being left on the site. This has been well achieved as most of the site now looks like a flat building site devoid of any life apart from a few pathetic trees and certainly no obvious archaeological value to the unknowing eye. It is obvious therefore of the heed the Council intends the developer to pay to the planning condition.

   Furthermore the Council has; failed to include even this weak condition in Planning Application 97/1325 for the Bus Station being constructed under the name of London Transport Property/Buses at the south end of Crystal Palace Parade. This is still part of the same Grade II*, Metropolitan Open Land and also failing to comply with points 1-7 as detailed above.

   More information

   See the Crystal Palace Campaign website.

   

   ---

   This page hosted by
   Get your own Free Home Page
   Hosted by www.Geocities.ws