A-Infos (en) Freedom 6404 22 Feb, 2003 - A community in action

[Worker <a-infos-en@ainfos.ca>]

 ________________________________________________
      A - I N F O S  N E W S  S E R V I C E
            http://www.ainfos.ca/
        http://ainfos.ca/index24.html
 ________________________________________________

On the night of 23rd December last year, a group of 
park users calling themselves the Crystal Palace Park 
Liberation Front (CPPLF) uprooted part of an 
unsightly fence that's illegally enclosing the top ridge 
of Crystal Palace Park. The fence stayed down for a 
full fortnight, the longest time since it was put up. 
While this was an effective action and attractive to the 
local press, it was only a small part of a growing 
campaign to undermine the determination of 
park-owners Bromley Borough Council to attract 
developers to the site. Two local residents are 
currently seeking a judicial review that challenges the 
borough's decision to enclose the land.

Bromley's initial response was to open an alternative 
pathway into the park, while refusing to consider 
whether or not the land should have been enclosed in 
the first place. This was despite objections from 
official bodies such as English Heritage and the 
Disability Rights Commission, which is concerned 
about loss of disabled access to the park (with the 
ridge entrance fenced off, disabled users are forced to 
use flights of steps or a vehicle entrance).

At the start of this year Bromley ran a 'consultation', 
distributed through Anerley, Penge and Upper 
Norwood libraries and advertised on the fence itself, 
as well as on the council's website. It asked four 
questions about the fence, the flytipping and the 
proposed advertising boards (these were all phrased as 
yes or no questions, though there was space for further 
comments). Bromley only received 121 replies.

Many believe the consultation was only done as a 
pathetic attempt at spoiling the court case, especially 
since Bromley doesn't have a history of caring what the 
residents of the area think. Indeed, the questions 
failed to address the real issues, while Bromley's own 
chronology of past events was plainly incorrect.

Around thirty local residents attended a council 
meeting at which the outcome of the consultation was 
discussed. Councillors decided that, in line with 83% of 
the respondents, advertising hoardings wouldn't be 
placed above the fence - a decision welcomed by 
residents. But they also said the questionnaires were 
invalid, because the majority response to the question, 
"has the fence solved the problem?" was no. They 
asked how this could be possible when the fence had 
clearly solved the problem of flytipping. To residents, 
of course, it's the fence itself that's the problem.
Many other actions continue against Bromley's fence. 

Local amenity groups have met with councillors and 
suggested solutions, such as alternative forms of 
fencing and pedestrian access. Countless individuals 
have written to councillors, MPs and the media, and 
parts of the fence are frequently being repainted after 
protest slogans such as 'if you build it, we will break it' 
and 'free the park' are sprayed on.

The CPPLF action in December marked the second 
time people have reopened the park for themselves 
(the first was reported in Freedom, 5th October 2002). 
Bromley will no doubt have to continue rebuilding and 
repainting the fence regularly, until they take it down 
for good.

The strength of the local community is inspiring, but 
in Crystal Palace people have become used to fighting 
to save their park. Five years ago, Bromley Council 
announced plans to build a multiplex cinema on the 
same site. These plans were finally dropped after a 
combination of direct action, legal challenges, 
marches, petitions, letter-writing and so on. It's only by 
using such a huge range of tactics that battles like this 
can be won.

So many complementary methods of attack not only 
pose the greatest challenge to the council, but also 
allow the maximum number of people to be involved. 
A large cross-section of the community is involved, 
from shop owners to whole families, from students to 
environmentalists Ğ all those who use the park and 
care about the community.

Many local amenity groups have been, and continue to 
be, instrumental in bringing people together to fight 
back on many issues. As well as challenging Bromley's 
fence, they're also fighting the London Borough of 
Croydon's new one-way system in Upper Norwood, 
which is having a detrimental effect on shops in the 
area. These very active groups help strengthen 
community bonds by giving people the confidence and 
support they need to change things for the better.
Crystal

¥ On 12th February, community groups met Bromley 
councillors and officials at Anerley Town Hall to 
discuss the future of the park and the National Sports 
Centre. After a heated discussion on the subject of the 
fence, Bromley Council leader Michael Tickner agreed 
to table the subject for discussion at the next meeting 
of the council executive, with a view to replacing the 
current three-metre fence with a smaller, palisade one. 
This would allow residents full access to the hilltop. 
Perhaps the council is starting to realise that residents 
won't just walk away from a park they've fought for so 
long.

For more information email SaveCrystalPalacePark@ 
yahoo.co.uk or phone Crystal Palace Protest on 020 
8653 8977.

Visit the info point on Thursday, Friday and Saturday 
afternoons at 32 Church Road, Upper Norwood, London 
SE19.

*******
                       ********
       ****** The A-Infos News Service ******
      News about and of interest to anarchists
                       ******
  COMMANDS: lists@ainfos.ca
  REPLIES: a-infos-d@ainfos.ca
  HELP: a-infos-org@ainfos.ca
  WWW: http://www.ainfos.ca/
  INFO: http://www.ainfos.ca/org

-To receive a-infos in one language only mail lists@ainfos.ca the message:
                unsubscribe a-infos
                subscribe a-infos-X
 where X = en, ca, de, fr, etc. (i.e. the language code)