Signatures 273 total
- 1
- 2
-
3
Name: Monica Clarke on Apr 10, 2007Comments: I want Crystal Palace Park to remain FREE OF ANY Houses at the Sydenham Gate. Also No Tram in the ParkFlag
- 4
- 5
- 6
-
7
Name: Kalina Palka on Apr 11, 2007Comments: I oppose: Selling off public property to the private sector Replacing green space with concrete in a heavily urbanised environment Setting a dangerous precedent for the funding of parks Ignoring the protection our park enjoys as a Grade II* listed site and Metropolitan Open LandFlag
-
8
Name: Richard & Lin Francis on Apr 11, 2007Comments: There is clearly no justifiable reason for selling parkland for housing. All excuses proffered by the LDA to date have been utterly bogus. Finance for improvements within the Park can, and must, be found elsewhere. Our Park is not for sale!Flag
- 9
- 10
-
11
Name: Dr Martin Delahaye on Apr 12, 2007Comments: It is shameful that a Council is prepared to destroy one of the finests parks in London when an equal number of houses could be built on brown field sites.Flag
- 12
-
13
Name: John Payne on Apr 14, 2007Comments: Not only Grade ll* registered but Metropolitan Open Land - the urban equivalent of green belt. How much protection do you need to protect our public open spaces If sell-off for housing is successful it will set a precedent threatening all parks across the land.Flag
- 14
-
15
Name: Bernard Brindley on Apr 14, 2007Comments: I live in Sydenham Avenue, I use the park a lot - almost every day - and the proposed develoment would detract from my aspect of and use of the park a good deal.Flag
-
16
Name: Stephanie Lodge on Apr 14, 2007Comments: I register the strongest possible objection to the sale of any part of Crystal Palace Park to developers for whatever reason, but especially housing. This is Metropolitan Open Land and housing is not in the criteria of exceptional reasons for development in parkland. This is a Park for the people not LDA and developers. Even if it was acceptable, none of these houses would include even 1% social housing let alone 50% to meet Ken's 50% policy within any large development complex. The criteria for MOL is open air cultural and recreational, eg. sports, theatre, environmental and educational to keep the open characteristic nature of the parkland. No other parkland has had to undergo a development to fund environmental improvements. If it was part of the Royal Parks family it would never be considered, as it is a 'People Park' for those from all walks of life it is considered to be perfect for housing development - NO IT'S NOT!!! PARKLAND IS FOR PEOPLE, not handing over to private ownership. CRYSTAL PALACE PARK IS NOT FOR SALE, NOT EVEN PART OF IT!!! Yours sincerely, Stephanie LodgeFlag
- 17
-
18
Name: Anonymous on Apr 16, 2007Comments: The Crystal Palace park should be left alone. If it is to be re-developed then why can't it have a copy of the original Crystal Palace built where it was this would then be a tourist attraction and would no doubt pay for itself eventually.this park is not just a park it is a slice of history.Flag
-
19
Name: Margaret Cooper on Apr 16, 2007Comments: The Crystal Palace park should be left alone. If it is to be re-developed then why can't it have a copy of the original Crystal Palace built where it was this would then be a tourist attraction and would no doubt pay for itself eventually.this park is not just a park it is a slice of history.Flag
-
20
Name: Anonymous on Apr 17, 2007Comments: Dont you think we could at least leave some things free from developmentFlag
- 21
- 22
-
23
Name: Anonymous on Apr 18, 2007Comments: another example of overdevelopment which nibbles away at our green spaces- particularly large gardens, and now parks !Flag
-
24
Name: Dave Miller on Apr 18, 2007Comments: From what I hear, the supposed justification for this appears to be that it's already been done - I believe this was in 1945 Some of the park was sold off to pay for the upkeep. Also I hear people saying this is the only way the park will ever get the funding to be improved. Trouble is by building houses on it, eventually we end up with no park!Flag
-
25
Name: D Elkin on Apr 19, 2007Comments: Crystal Palace Park is highly protected - Grade II * registered - the same as Buckingham Palace Gardens, Metropolitan Open Land, the urban equivalent of Green Belt and much of it lies within a Conservation Area. If the precedent is set here to sell parkland for private housing, no park or public open space in the UK will be safe. Parks and green open spaces will go the way of our playing fields.Flag
-
26
Name: D Elkin on Apr 19, 2007Comments: Crystal Palace Park is highly protected - Grade II * registered - the same as Buckingham Palace Gardens, Metropolitan Open Land, the urban equivalent of Green Belt and much of it lies within a Conservation Area. If the precedent is set here to sell parkland for private housing, no park or public open space in the UK will be safe. Parks and green open spaces will go the way of our playing fields.Flag
-
27
Name: Emma Jaeger on Apr 19, 2007Comments: The park should remain public. You start selling it off and it's the beginning of the end of the park. It's one of the few green areas around here and must not be lost.Flag
- 28
-
29
Name: Alexander Lopez on May 11, 2007Comments: The park should not be destroyed by the likes of private developers. Keep the park as it is with no new housing.Flag
-
30
Name: Pam Gray on May 13, 2007Comments: Selling off any part of this historic park for private housing development is totally unacceptable. The park is a wonderful public asset for Londoners and visitors. It should be properly respected and financed through public and benefactor funds, NOT using the land for short-term financial gain. Other historic parks can be restored through other funding means. The same principle should apply here and for all historic parks.Flag
-
31
Name: Pam Gray on May 13, 2007Comments: Selling off any part of this historic park for private housing development is totally unacceptable. The park is a wonderful public asset for Londoners and visitors. It should be properly respected and financed through public and benefactor funds, NOT using the land for short-term financial gain. Other historic parks can be restored through other funding means. The same principle should apply here and for all historic parks.Flag
-
32
Name: Anonymous on May 13, 2007Comments: Selling off any part of this historic park for private housing development is totally unacceptable. The park is a wonderful public asset for Londoners and visitors. It should be properly respected and financed through public and benefactor funds, NOT using the land for short-term financial gain. Other historic parks can be restored through other funding means. The same principle should apply here and for all historic parks.Flag
-
33
Name: Stephanie Lodge on May 16, 2007Comments: I register my strongest possible objection to the sale of any part of Crystal Palace Park for housing or any other proposed 'sustainable' development. This is not the reason why parks were created. They were created for the health and social benefits for the local communities, NOT commodities to be traded off by ANY local authority or other outside agencies. Other parks have been vastly regenerated at great expense but WITHOUT private, highly paid yuppies. The next saddest part about these proposals is that possibly less than 1% of the income generated from these houses will be re-invested in Crystal Palace Park. I also register my strongest possible objection to any precedent being set - the sale of ANY parkland or part thereof, especially Crystal Palace Park. This Park, or any other London Park will never actually belong to the LDA, these are Peoples' Parks not theirs to sell off at a whim. Yours sincerely, Stephanie LodgeFlag
-
34
Name: Stephanie Lodge on May 16, 2007Comments: I register my strongest possible objection to the sale of any part of Crystal Palace Park for housing or any other proposed 'sustainable' development. This is not the reason why parks were created. They were created for the health and social benefits for the local communities, NOT commodities to be traded off by ANY local authority or other outside agencies. Other parks have been vastly regenerated at great expense but WITHOUT private, highly paid yuppies. The next saddest part about these proposals is that possibly less than 1% of the income generated from these houses will be re-invested in Crystal Palace Park. I also register my strongest possible objection to any precedent being set - the sale of ANY parkland or part thereof, especially Crystal Palace Park. This Park, or any other London Park will never actually belong to the LDA, these are Peoples' Parks not theirs to sell off at a whim. Yours sincerely, Stephanie LodgeFlag
-
35
Name: Stephanie Lodge on May 16, 2007Comments: I register my strongest possible objection to the sale of any part of Crystal Palace Park for housing or any other proposed 'sustainable' development. This is not the reason why parks were created. They were created for the health and social benefits for the local communities, NOT commodities to be traded off by ANY local authority or other outside agencies. Other parks have been vastly regenerated at great expense but WITHOUT private, highly paid yuppies. The next saddest part about these proposals is that possibly less than 1% of the income generated from these houses will be re-invested in Crystal Palace Park. I also register my strongest possible objection to any precedent being set - the sale of ANY parkland or part thereof, especially Crystal Palace Park. This Park, or any other London Park will never actually belong to the LDA, these are Peoples' Parks not theirs to sell off at a whim. Yours sincerely, Stephanie LodgeFlag
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 39
-
40
Name: Debra Barton on May 17, 2007Comments: I have enjoyed going the cystal palace park for many years and hope to continue doing so. Most people go to the park to get away from built up areas and enjoy the peace the park creates.Flag
- 41
-
42
Name: Simon Clark on May 17, 2007Comments: The Parks in London are both the lungs of the city and a vital part of our heritage. It is iniquitous that anyone should even consider selling off any part of the park for housing. I strongly oppose this course of action!Flag
-
43
Name: Mrs M Singers on May 17, 2007Comments: This sets the most insidious precedent , not just here , but throughout the country . As citizens , we should be able to rely upon parkland as being untouchable , for the enjoyment of the people , not for the gratification and pocket lining of the LDA. They come as wolves in sheeps clothing.Flag
- 44
- 45
- 46
- 47
-
48
Name: Samanta Elliott on May 18, 2007Comments: I think it is vital to keep London parks intact. Sydenham is already a pretty unpleasant area, it can only get worse by taking away the green space that we have walking distance from our homes.Flag
-
49
Name: Anonymous on May 18, 2007Comments: Bringing up a child on a tight budget in the 1980s I (and family) really appreciated this park for outings. A walk around the park currently shows this situation still to be very much the case for many families. It isn't exaggerating to say that Crystal Palace Park is probably a health necessity for people in this highly built-up area. This is where the Palace of the People once stood. To contemplate taking out large sections to give over to luxury housing defies belief.Flag
- 50