| # | Name | Comments |
|---|
| 1 | Julian Maynard-Smith | |
| 2 | Gloria Marin | |
| 3 | Monica Clarke | I want Crystal Palace Park to remain FREE OF ANY
Houses at the Sydenham Gate. Also No Tram in the Park |
| 4 | Paul Hudson | |
| 5 | Jeremy Walker | |
| 6 | BEN FINE | |
| 7 | Kalina Palka | 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 Land |
| 8 | Richard & Lin Francis | 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! |
| 9 | Suzanne Hudson | |
| 10 | Suzanne Hudson | |
| 11 | Dr Martin Delahaye | 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. |
| 12 | Simone Mondesir | |
| 13 | John Payne | 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. |
| 14 | Peter Longhurst | |
| 15 | Bernard Brindley | 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. |
| 16 | Stephanie Lodge | 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 Lodge |
| 17 | Emma Francis | |
| 18 | Anonymous | 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. |
| 19 | Margaret cooper | 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. |
| 20 | Anonymous | Dont you think we could at least leave some things free from development |
| 21 | Julia Skinner | Please don't destroy CP Park. |
| 22 | Anonymous | |
| 23 | Anonymous | another example of overdevelopment which nibbles away at our green spaces- particularly large gardens, and now parks ! |
| 24 | Dave Miller | 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! |
| 25 | D Elkin | 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. |
| 26 | D Elkin | 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. |
| 27 | Emma Jaeger | 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. |
| 28 | Jai Willimott | No Houseing in teh park please. |
| 29 | Alexander Lopez | The park should not be destroyed by the likes of private developers. Keep the park as it is with no new housing. |
| 30 | Pam Gray | 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. |
| 31 | Pam Gray | 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. |
| 32 | Anonymous | 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. |
| 33 | Stephanie Lodge | 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 Lodge |
| 34 | Stephanie Lodge | 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 Lodge |
| 35 | Stephanie Lodge | 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 Lodge |
| 36 | Sandra Potter | |
| 37 | Ruth Weigelt | |
| 38 | Peter Bond | |
| 39 | Hannah Bond | |
| 40 | Debra Barton | 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. |
| 41 | Shelley Mansfield | There are very few green spaces left. |
| 42 | Simon Clark | 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! |
| 43 | mrs m singers | 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. |
| 44 | mr. g singers | |
| 45 | mr. g singers | |
| 46 | mr. g singers | this should not be allowed it is criminal |
| 47 | mr and mrs e west | this should not be allowed it is criminal |
| 48 | Samanta Elliott | 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. |
| 49 | Anonymous | 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. |
| 50 | Peter Hilliard | |