# Crystal Palace Caravan Club Site



## SNandJA (Aug 22, 2008)

Anyone know if a petition has been raised to counter the proposal to close Crystal Palace? It is local authority land so leased to the CC and apparently there are issues regarding the possible rebuilding of the old Crystal Palace which housed an exhibition/trade fair to show off all that was "Great" about Britain's part in the Industrial Revolution.

Crystal Palace rebuild

You'd have thought a campsite could be integrated into the scheme? The campsite is behind and right of the photo impression. To the right of the huge mast.

Baltic Wharf version seems to be getting support?

Steve

Project apparently driven by Chinese Millionaire!


----------



## wp1234 (Sep 29, 2009)

SNandJA said:


> Anyone know if a petition has been raised to counter the proposal to close Crystal Palace? It is local authority land so leased to the CC and apparently there are issues regarding the possible rebuilding of the old Crystal Palace which housed an exhibition/trade fair to show off all that was "Great" about Britain's part in the Industrial Revolution.
> 
> Crystal Palace rebuild
> 
> ...


Bloody typical UK mentality , bet its some foreign investor hoping to make a quick buck and bugger everyone else that inconvenienced and typical Caravan Club inaction for not having the balls to counter it !!IF this site closes that's the last the CC sees of my £40

I love this site so count me in to any petition and action movement


----------



## pete4x4 (Dec 20, 2006)

if they are rebuilding the original footprint then the campsite is outside.
But definitely a nono and cant possibly be economically viable. That is a huge facility for Crystal Palace to lose.


----------



## grandadbaza (Jan 3, 2008)

pete4x4 said:


> iThat is a huge facility for Crystal Palace to lose.


They dont lose that much these days not even to Liverpool!!!

Sorry to change the subject :wink: *

We actually really like the site and would be lost without it*


----------



## safariboy (May 1, 2005)

As I understand the situation the problem is that they need to repair the Italian terraces which are certainly dangerous and the cost will be several millions. Their solution is to build houses on the CC site and another plot in the park.
There have been petitions and appeals etc. before the decision was made. I fear that it is now too late.
However there have been various other proposals. There is a rumour that an extension to 2018 may be in the offing but who knows.
Realistically I do not see the club getting a long enough extension to make it worth while putting in another toilet block and sorting out the sewage system. I suspect that they are putting all their efforts into Abbey Wood now it has an overground link into London.
I will miss Crystal Palace because I love the area and am not so keen on going even further East. If we cannot use crystal Palace I suspect that we will use Walton or Chertsey (Camping Club)


----------



## Penquin (Oct 15, 2007)

BUT of course the CC site at Crystal Palace is inside the LEZ and as such is not accessible by a very large number of diesel powered MH, infact probably very few >3.5t vehicles built before 2004/5 could use it due to the way that the Category has been arbitrarily decided - I believe that 2004 vehicles are identical to 2003 but 2004 can get the certificate of approval without extra fitments whereas the 2003 cannot......

I used to live a few miles from CP and used to use the swimming pool (Olympic sized) for training and the diving boards were brilliant (for jumping off in diving gear), but the racetrack went through many years of not being used (this year is the fifth consecutive year that a charitable event will be held there).

The CC seems determined to sit on it's hands in all of these campaigns - they keep a low profile "for fear of rocking the boat" ;

*"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.*" - Edmund Burke, British statesman.

is perhaps apt.

Dave


----------



## Grizzly (May 9, 2005)

Penquin said:


> The CC seems determined to sit on it's hands in all of these campaigns - they keep a low profile "for fear of rocking the boat" ;
> 
> *"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.*" - Edmund Burke, British statesman.
> 
> ...


Dave, Are you aware of the representations made by the CC to preserve the CP site ? They are, when all is said and done , an organisation set up, not with a brief to campaign but to run caravan sites.

To call the development of the CP site " evil" is extreme and to pass judgement on the affair without having read and listened to all the ramifications and the complexities, is unfair.

G


----------



## Mrplodd (Mar 4, 2008)

The earning potential for the proposed development will be vastly superior to what the campsite earns for the freeholder (which is not the CC) 

Remember it's beancounters who control everything these days.


----------



## Penquin (Oct 15, 2007)

Grizzly, please read my post again, nowhere did I refer to either the building or the CC as "evil" I simply quoted a saying which means that things will happen if others don't oppose them, nothing more.

I can only read what I have been told by the CC, which is very little.....

They were asked to campaign against the LEZ and it's impact on MH, they refused.

They have been asked to support the Baltic Wharf campaign and have refused.

I have seen no evidence that they are leading a campaign to keep CP open, if they have then their advertising is at a very low profile if their members are unaware of it....

http://www.crystalpalacecampaign.org/MasterPlan/CPP_ES_NTS.pdf

page 37;

The Proposals would mean that the Crystal Palace
Caravan Club Site would be returned partly to 
parkland. The Caravan Club Club would need to
be relocated to achieve this and this would also
be used to construct part of the Rockhills
Residential area. This would represent an adverse
impact although the LDA would work with the
Caravan Club to find a suitable alternative location.

http://www.newsshopper.co.uk/search...alace_Park_strife_could_lead_to_legal_action/

A spokeswoman for the Caravan Club in Crystal Palace Parade said the decision to uproot them would be "detrimental" for the area.

The club attracts in excess of £750,000 of spending each year with local businesses, she said, and provided overnight accommodation for tourists and cash-strapped athletes visiting the sports facilities at Crystal Palace.

http://www.crystal.dircon.co.uk/b28_developments.htm

There have been proposals to move the CC site from CP to Woolwich since June 1976 as a permanent site and to allow expansion (of the CC site or the CP site is not made clear).

But I have never seen any sign of a campaign by the CC, maybe I have just missed it.......

But I did NOT say the redevelopment is "evil", that is NOT a term I would use, but I do believe (and have said before on other threads) that unless EVERYONE exerts influence where they can, then the local authorities will drive these closures through and will not necessarily find any suitable alternative.....

BUT I have no plans to visit the CP site - our MH would be excluded by the LEZ rules, so for me, a suitable site OUTSIDE the LEZ may well be preferable.

Dave


----------



## SNandJA (Aug 22, 2008)

safariboy said:


> As I understand the situation the problem is that they need to repair the Italian terraces which are certainly dangerous and the cost will be several millions. Their solution is to build houses on the CC site and another plot in the park.
> There have been petitions and appeals etc. before the decision was made. I fear that it is now too late.
> However there have been various other proposals. There is a rumour that an extension to 2018 may be in the offing but who knows.
> Realistically I do not see the club getting a long enough extension to make it worth while putting in another toilet block and sorting out the sewage system. I suspect that they are putting all their efforts into Abbey Wood now it has an overground link into London.
> I will miss Crystal Palace because I love the area and am not so keen on going even further East. If we cannot use crystal Palace I suspect that we will use Walton or Chertsey (Camping Club)


Apparently the houses are not likely to be built but because the Crystal Palace itself would be a rebuild then there are fewer issues regarding planning permission!


----------



## Grizzly (May 9, 2005)

Dave...they are not a campaigning group. They exist to run campsites and have no brief to publically campaign. 

The Crystal Palace campaign group petition has 30, OOO plus signatures and, as a regular user of the site, we are aware of many of the issues and have looked at the 280 odd page planning application and all the responses to it. There is no doubt that a lot of good things are going to happen to an area which has been allowed to decay to the point where parts are actively dangerous at worst and unsightly at best. There is no doubt that, if the park is sympathetically developed in parts then there will be benefits to the community. However, the money must come from somewhere and this is from housing. The leaseholder of the CC site would be foolish not to sell up in the circumstances. I hope that the development is sympathetic.

The loss of the CC is not one of the good things to happen and I find the justification for demolition a bit strange. 

What do you propose the CC and MHF members should do ? Have you signed the petition ? Do you know what the local community want ? 

Lots of questions and it has been going on for many, many years. Its not as simple as standing up and shouting about it and it is wrong to suggest this without also suggesting that interested parties also do their homework.

G


----------



## Penquin (Oct 15, 2007)

May I respectfully suggest that everyone has a read of the .pdf that the CC produces;

https://www.caravanclub.co.uk/media/1255834/facts-corporate-brochure.pdf

page 7 in particular about "Working on behalf of its members"

I have attached a copy of those pages below with a couple of paragraphs highlighted.

Those paragraphs strongly suggest to me that one of the roles of the CC is to represent the views of all caravan and MH users at a Parliamentary level so they are a campaign group, it is simply a matter of what issues they choose to campaign over,

Like Grizzly I can see a very large benefit in the redevelopment of the area which HAS been neglected for too long; an injection of finance would clearly improve the area markedly, some parts are becoming dangerous and MUST be stabilised.

My concern is that once again a city centre amenity with a massive financial impact on the surroundings will be lost - various figures quote the contribution of the CC site to the area as £750,000 upwards, but that is small change c/w the potential sums of money involved with a possible housing development - particularly one with no "low cost" or amenity housing involved. House prices in London are notoriously inflated and may well be driving the increase in inflation for the whole country.

There have been discussions about the future of Crystal Palace for well over 50 years as the link that I posted shows....

I wonder what the outcome will be? Will the Palace itself ever be rebuilt? Will the park be renovated ? Will the CC site be closed?
Only time will tell Such is progress. But that does not mean that campaigns to retain such a facility are wrong.....

Dave


----------



## Grizzly (May 9, 2005)

Penquin said:


> Those paragraphs strongly suggest to me that one of the roles of the CC is to represent the views of all caravan and MH users at a Parliamentary level so they are a campaign group, it is simply a matter of what issues they choose to campaign over,
> 
> Dave


Dave... yes of course the CC has a brief to represent the views of all users BUT that does not make it a campaigning organisation. The former involves individuals- having perhaps been briefed by the company solicitors- presenting the views of users to those planning committees, public meetings and private individuals who need to hear them and are au fait with the issues involved.

The latter involves actively publicising the issues to the world at large via a host of outlets eg the media, posters, mailings etc etc in such a way that those who have no direct stake in the matter are aware. This is not the brief of the CC who have no mandate to spend their members' subscriptions on such a campaign.

Of course it is not wrong to register a strong wish that the site is not removed, but it would be more useful at this stage, as you say, 50 years on, to look at the positioning of a new site which the CC could lease.

We've known about this issue since we started using the site many years ago and it has always been very fluid in planning. Like many other sites- Oxford comes to mind- the plans by the leasing club to improve the site are blighted by the long-drawn out machinations involved.

G


----------



## safariboy (May 1, 2005)

I do not see the recreation of crystal palace ever taking off. That amount of metal could do interesting things to the TV transmitter signal. If they did there would still be room for the camp site.


----------



## wp1234 (Sep 29, 2009)

Grizzly said:


> Dave...they are not a campaigning group. They exist to run campsites and have no brief to publically campaign.
> 
> G


Do weasel and words come to mind !


----------

