Gala have sold the bingo hall at 25 Church Road, SE19 to a large evangelical church despite an independent cinema operator also putting in an offer.
This art deco building is key to the regeneration of the Crystal Palace triangle. It was originally built in 1928 as a cinema and the beautiful interior was designed by the renowned cinema architect George Coles. The building is one of the most significant venues in the town centre and as a commercially viable cinema it would bring many benefits to the area and to all members of the existing community.
English Heritage has identified the triangle as an ‘at risk’ conservation area, as such, the sympathetic restoration of this building to its original community use would act as a catalyst for the rest of area, especially Church Road.
The building has a designated D2 planning use (cinema/bingo) and we are campaigning to retain that planning use for the benefit of the local community and to support the regeneration and economic growth of our much loved town and its local traders. We do not believe that the local population has any planning need for an eighth church to serve the triangle. The church is relocating its substantial congregation from Wimbledon and are currently preparing a planning application to change the use of 25 Church Road from community use to a place of worship for their followers. When the application has been submitted, Bromley council will be consulting the local community. It is imperative that we act at this time as a community so that our voices are heard.
The new church will not only strip us of a vital community building but it will also considerably increase traffic congestion and parking issues in the area several times a week by people with no other interest in the town centre. If you agree with us and want a cinema in Crystal Palace rather than another church then please sign the petition in local shops, spread the word amongst your friends and neighbours and contact your local councillors, MPs, GLA members and Bromley’s planning department.
Contact details for your representatives can be found in the How you can help section of the website. Picture-Palace.org will be regularly updated with news and information relevant to the campaign – please register so that we can send you updates of any significant developments.
About the Picture Palace Campaign
For me, simples! A cinema. As mentioned above, the idea of having a “Multiplex” with bars opening up until one in the morning was daunting, and could no way see it’s justification given the volume of traffic expected and it’s extremely late closing hours (suggested) and no public transport to dispurse the crowds. We, in the general area, have a multitude of local churches of all denominations to choose from. I’m thinking, what activity is likely to be more beneficial for the whole of the Crystal Palace community? One cinema.
Has anyone enquired with English Heritage whether they’d support a campaign for listing the building? This is something that could be progressed irrespective of planning applications by the current owners, and is a tactic that the Battersea community successfully used in the late 60′s to prevent a nearby local council knocking down Battersea Old Town Hall – they preserved it as an arts centre, protecting half of its original purpose, that of public entertainment for the local community with halls for hire. (It’s now Battersea Arts Centre.)
You’d need to check with the prospective cinema that they’d be confident of being able to do any modernisation they needed to support the business or meet current licensing law, because the last thing you want to do is to put them off bidding if the building comes back onto the market. But given that the building’s so brilliantly preserved – if Eng. Heritage feel it’s of some architectural merit – given Crystal Palace’s own heritage as a site of large scale public entertainment – the fact that it’s in a conservation area and under threat – and going with the planning dictum that the best use for any building is the one it was originally intended for – it might be worth exploring?
I have read in various sources of KICC’s claim that its church is open to the whole community, e.g, see paragraph 6 in the following link: http://www.streathamguardian.co.uk/news/4504938.Cinema_chain_promises_to_meet_silver_screen_campaigners/
However, I have also found evidence which seems to contradict that claim. Namely KICC representatives, including its main Pastor, Matthew Ashimolowo, signed a petition back in 2006 which opposes the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations, which was introduced in to 2007 and was designed to address issues around discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation. The link to the petition can be found here:
http://www.evangelicals.org/news.asp?id=466
This is obviously a great concern as Crystal Palace has a significant LGBT community. What does everyone else think?
Just read the piece below discussing City Screen’s efforts to be inclusive – I work with disabled people and can wholeheartedly praise City Screen’s efforts – we frequently use their facilities as they provide ‘Autism Friendly’ showings where the lighting and sound are adjusted to suit people with Autistic Spectrum disorders. They have also very generously held public showings of films made by people with Learning Disabilities for which our organisation is very appreciative. They appear to be a very friendly and helpful business and are well worthy of support and patronage.
Just another of the million and one reasons why I’m all for a cinema in Crystal Palace.
Mike,
Thank you for your post. As a practising Christian I share your misgivings about some Pentecostal churches and feel very uneasy about the “God wants you rich, and we want ten percent of it” doctrine, and their selective quotation of biblical texts.
However, this is a moderated forum about bringing a cinema to Crystal Palace, not about knocking a church. Your comments, however sincerely held, have no place in this discussion and are likely to divert attention from the main topic.
If you would care to resubmit your comments down to “I feel I have the positive values and beliefs my upbringing has installed in me”, they will be considered for publication.
I hope you understand our position.
Best wishes.
Can I firstly say how nice it was to see some counter argument on this open forum, there may have been a danger that our arguments were getting repetitive and it has all been fairly one sided. Harry’s words were well chosen and he has offered another perspective.
In response though, can I just say what I really want is a Cinema. If I see a campaign to open a nearer one, I will support that too.
It is a shame that the first I heard about this was when the church had won the right to proceed. I am an atheist, but not a militant one, I don’t put leaflets through doors or anything. I don’t need to be made to feel guilty about preferring a cinema to a church, but having been born into the Church of England and rejected it I perhaps do find it easier to rate a cinema above a church, rather than against a mosque or something. That’s just how it is though.
And I rate the two alternatives like this: I give a Cinema a 6, because cinema trips are fairly rare, but enjoyable.
A church gets a 2, because they are architecturally pleasing, but I would never go. The proposed church loses both points because it’s a cinema.
I agree with Nick, I am glad that there is an opposite view and it gives all readers a chance to see why the local community chooses a cinema over a church. There is no point in debate without counter arguments and I for one do not condone a ‘group think’ scenario.
Harry you are very eloquent in your response and reasoning. However you perhaps fail to see the real community spirit in Crystal Palace. I for one am sure that I have very opposing opinions and attitudes to religion, law, fairness, education to many people on this site. I do though wish that a building that is an ideal building to be a cinema be restored as such. For a number of reasons which most have been outlined in previous comments, but primarily because I think that Crystal Palace needs it for regeneration.
As a resident of Crystal Palace you should be very aware that the community vociferously oppose planning permission for developments they feel are not beneficial to the community. If you have researched the area and it’s resident you will have read that when trying to plonk a HUGE multiplex cinema complex in the area, people were strongly opposed. The baddie then was ‘multiplex’ as opposed to ‘church’ as you insinuate. Should another proposed development be so detrimental (see the ongoing debate over selling Parkland to fund park redevelopment) to the local community then I’m sure the local community will jump in to action. So why are you surprised by this reaction at all?
So rest assured, this church is not being ‘singled out’ by me. I can safely look inside myself and know that I am not prejudice, I am an upstanding, caring, conscious individual and I feel absolutely unashamedly that I want a Cinema in Church Road.
The article you have left a link for is very enlightening and for me strengthens the argument for having an independent cinema in the area and demonstrates it can be achieved.
Traditionally communities were built around the church, around centers of worship. Agriculture and industry helped us make a living, but our church and our community made our lives worth living. These days our churches are small and our businesses are big, we have exchanged community grounds for business interests. Churches for amusement arcades and entertainment venus. What we have failed to realise is that our personal relationships cannot simply be built on business interests and banal amusements, it must go beyond material purposes, or else it has no foundation. When the money dries up, the businesses leave and our sense of community evapourates. This is by no means to say that community and business interests are in any way at odds, it is to say that the good of the community must come first and business interests are never the primary good.
What has not been considered or discussed, is why the KICC need a new venue? Kingsway had their own land and purpose built church, until the Olympic Commission forced them to sell the land and property to be developed for the Olympics. Kingsway offered to share the building and development cost but they were told that the Government could not undertake and commercial partnership with a church. So in effect the church was evicted in 2006 and has been searching for a new venue ever since. Now the caring and welcoming community of Crystal Palace seems likewise, set against them.
The economic case for the church is clear, it had the money, obtained by donations from a congregation that is clearly devoted and has a strong community spirit. The church was able to bid higher because its ‘business’ model is more feasible and sustainable. It is likely that members of the congregation may move to Crystal Palace to be closer to their church – an unlikely scenario for any cinema faithful. That would add real value to the community and help it grow. It seems complaints about ‘too many people’ and ‘no place for parking’ are somewhat disingenuous. For the Cinema to work, it would need people to flood to it and they would need places to park. The Cinema, realistically, would have to work hard to meet the diverse and individualist whims of its patrons. It seems unlikely that the pensioners who have lost the facility of the Bingo hall will be enticed to see valueless films like “Saw VI” or “Vicky Christina Barcelona”. When all the fuss dies down and the church (God forbid) has taken is money and its devotees elsewhere, Crystal Palace will be left with another failed Cinema, a derelict building and a dwindling community.
So what’s wrong with one more church? Perhaps one might be naive enough to think that there are no alterior motives for the “Cinema Campaign” but it seems apparent that those who would see the church off, were not so vigilant or motivated when the Bingo hall was running its business. Perhaps they are responding to their inner prejudice rather than to their community spirit. There was no community spirit driving for a new Cinema until the word ‘Church’ was uttered. This level of support would have guaranteed a Cinema years ago, and it still could in some other building. It will be interesting to see how motivated the ‘Campaigners’ remain should the church be allowed the use of the property it has legally purchased.
The use of zoning regulation is indeed a cynical and not unexpected tactic. It will be likely supported by the Council under the guise of ‘it is what the people want’. But perhaps they will be wiser. They may ask themselves the question: what is the difference between 500 people watching a flickering screen for 2 hours compared with a congregation standing before a Pastor and praising God? The difference might be found in the congregations’ desire to go out from that building motivated and inspired to reach out and help their community.
May God bless Crystal Palace and all who there live.
Harry
Thank you for your comment Harry. There are a number of factual errors but I have decided to approve your comment with one small edit to remove a legally questionable statement.
Hi Admin,
For the interests of a full and open dialogue, please detail the ‘factual errors’.
I admit there may be some, having done my research on the internet, but I would like everyone here to differentiate fact from fiction, so that they all (myself included) make informed decisions.
Traditionally communities were built around the church, around centers of worship [Actually, churches are built by communities, not the other way round]. Agriculture and industry helped us make a living, but our church and our community made our lives worth living [Unless your religion was different to everyone else’s, then your life was not worth living]. These days our churches are small and our businesses are big [Crystal Palace has many small businesses], we have exchanged community grounds for business interests. Churches for amusement arcades and entertainment venus. What we have failed to realise is that our personal relationships cannot simply be built on business interests and banal amusements, it must go beyond material purposes, or else it has no foundation [Most people are very aware of this, to suggest otherwise is patronising]. When the money dries up, the businesses leave and our sense of community evapourates. This is by no means to say that community and business interests are in any way at odds, it is to say that the good of the community must come first and business interests are never the primary good.
What has not been considered or discussed, is why the KICC need a new venue? Kingsway had their own land and purpose built church [No, the site in Hackney was previously warehouses], until the Olympic Commission forced them to sell the land and property to be developed for the Olympics. Kingsway offered to share the building and development cost but they were told that the Government could not undertake and commercial partnership with a church. So in effect the church was evicted [With a payment of £13,500,000 from the LDA] in 2006 and has been searching for a new venue ever since. Now the caring and welcoming community of Crystal Palace seems likewise, set against them. [We are against the change of use of the site; we are not against the church.]
The economic case for the church is clear, it had the money, obtained by donations from a congregation that is clearly devoted and has a strong community spirit. The church was able to bid higher because its ‘business’ model is more feasible and sustainable [The vast majority of the people who work for the church are volunteers so I suppose that is an effective business model; however Crystal Palace needs a business that actually pays all the people it employs]. It is likely that members of the congregation may move to Crystal Palace to be closer to their church – an unlikely scenario for any cinema faithful [Don’t you look at local amenities before buying a property? It’s not top of the list but many people would consider a local, community centred cinema as a definite plus when looking for a new home]. That would add real value to the community and help it grow. It seems complaints about ‘too many people’ and ‘no place for parking’ are somewhat disingenuous. For the Cinema to work, it would need people to flood to it and they would need places to park [Not everyone drives everywhere they go – most of the area surrounding Crystal Palace is residential and people are more than capable of walking to the cinema or using local buses to get them up the steeper hills]. The Cinema, realistically, would have to work hard to meet the diverse and individualist whims of its patrons. It seems unlikely that the pensioners who have lost the facility of the Bingo hall will be enticed to see valueless films like “Saw VI” or “Vicky Christina Barcelona” [Why not?]. When all the fuss dies down and the church (God
forbid) has taken is money and its devotees elsewhere, Crystal Palace will be left with another failed Cinema, a derelict building and a dwindling community [You clearly know nothing about Crystal Palace].
So what’s wrong with one more church? Perhaps one might be naive enough to think that there are no alterior motives for the “Cinema Campaign” but it seems apparent that those who would see the church off, were not so vigilant or motivated when the Bingo hall was running its business [Not sure what you mean there]. Perhaps they are responding to their inner prejudice rather than to their community spirit [What are you suggesting that the thousands of people, of all races and creeds, who have signed the petition against the change of use are prejudiced against? I think an apology for that remark would be appropriate]. There was no community spirit driving for a new Cinema until the word ‘Church’ was uttered [Yes there was]. This level of support would have guaranteed a Cinema years ago, and it still could in some other building. It will be interesting to see how motivated the ‘Campaigners’ remain should the church be allowed the use of the property it has legally purchased.
The use of zoning regulation is indeed a cynical and not unexpected tactic [It’s called planning law and it is the only way to prevent a change of use]. It will be likely supported by the Council under the guise of ‘it is what the people want’. But perhaps they will be wiser. They may ask themselves the question: what is the difference between 500 people watching a flickering screen for 2 hours compared with a congregation standing before a Pastor and praising God? [No, they will make their decision based on planning law] The difference might be found in the congregations’ desire to go out from that building motivated and inspired to reach out and help their community [Again, I think you owe many of the Crystal Palace community an apology. You seem to think that Christians are the only altruists, perhaps you should examine your own prejudices].
May God bless Crystal Palace and all who there live.
[Thanks]
Will someone tell me where I can take my freedom pass to see valueless films like “Saw VI” or “Vicky Christina Barcelona”? Otherwise I suppose I’ll have to make do with arthouse and original language films, relays from the National Theatre, or the knitting club.
Ah,
I thought you said ‘factual errors’ as opposed to ‘a difference of opinion’. I can’t argue against opinion but I would like to clarify what seems like some misrepresentations/misundertsandings about what I wrote.
I think there is some confusion about the difference between a village/town and a community. A community is more than regional association (town) or an economic association (properly called a ‘business community’). That was my point. The KICC community is eatablishing/building the church – the building itself is not the community.
The administrator has not considered that “planning law” is as much a tool of social eningeering as criminal law or welfare legislation. Physical health and fitness, for example can be developed or destroyed by regional planning laws that promote/restric the use of outdoor spaces. Planning law, removed the KICC and planning law can prevent its relocation.
The many charges of abusing the Crystal Palace residents, I greet with just so much hand waving. JP Satre said: “everyone gets the war they deserve”. So Crystal Palace’s response to this issue, will serve them rightly, regardless of what I am accused of saying.
My misconstrued references to Saw and VC Barcelona were comments specifically on the value of the films to the community. I don’t deny that there are not individual preferences for these films but their actual value to the community as a whole are exactly nil. I’m sure no one would want any resident to emulate the behaviours of a crazed serial killer or adulterous/promiscuous people (and no you would not like you partner cheating on you). Those are not things to expose to vulnerable or impressionable minds (children/adults). Compare this to the motivation from the church.
As I said, most other ‘errors’ in my first statement can be fairly viewed as differences of opinion. While I live in Crystal Palace, my livelyhood is not at all dependant on its success, so I’ll leave the care of the community in your very capable hands.
My last contribution: http://www.independentcinemaoffice.org.uk/pdf/atacinemanearyou.pdf
Regards,
Harry
Your disdain for your neighbours in Crystal Palace is clear, Harry. As are your continued efforts to mislead and to turn this matter into one of prejudice rather than community. That was your last contribution, from that IP address anyway.
I have just read Harry’s long and articulate message.
A couple of points:
Traffic/parking: City Screen, who also run cinemas in Clapham, Brixton and elsewhere, say that the huge majority of their audience arrive by public transport/bike and on foot, and it is anticipated that it would be the same in Crystal Palace. I would anticipate that a good proportion of the audience would be local people who will walk there.
Diversity: City Screen are extremely community-oriented and are driven by the interests of the local community, running screenings, for example, for mother and baby groups, knitting circles (!), films on local history etc etc. They run all sorts of film-oriented activities which constructively occupy young people. I feel very excited at the prospect of the focus for our community which it represents, which in truth, an evangelical church would not.
Cynicism: we are not cynical or anti-church. Had we known that City Screen had been trying to buy the Bingo Hall for years, we would certainly have mounted a campaign to back them. We have not suddenly been whipped into action by the prospect of preventing another church, but by supporting a community-oriented cinema which promises to bring so much to our area.
I hope that in the end we can have our cinema and the congregation can find an appropriate home.
God – however we perceive it – bless us all!
Kalina
Cynicism: we are not cynical or anti-church
I agree it is good to read another point of view but the comments made about Crystal Palace and its’ community were founded on ignorance. That ignorance then led the writer to infer that those who support a cinema in their community did so due to deep rooted racism. Seems like poor Harry really is in a bit of a muddle and I would like to come forward as a good Samaritan and offer some help:
Firstly City Screens had been lobbied by number of key locals since 2006 to check out suitability of 25 Church Road to be returned to a cinema. That was 3 years ago and way before the initials KICC came up on our radar. to suggest that the people of Crystal Palace are “responding to their inner prejudice rather than to their community spirit.” because they want a cinema as opposed to a church in their community building is a cheap shot Harry but it just doesn’t hit the spot.
The comment about the organisation being “evicted” from the Olympic site was again inaccurate and total fiction. For the record there were many other businesses and individuals as well as the KICC who had their buildings or land compulsory purchased. This was not an unkind act by a prejudiced government body and as admin pointed out the sum of nearly £14,000,000 was paid to KICC.
The existing Crystal Palace communities’ spiritual and Christian needs are well and truly catered for by 7 different denominations that offer a range of services to wider community such as youth groups, toddler groups, tea rooms, coffee mornings, exercise classes, art groups, bible classes, reading groups and much much more…
We would like a bit of variety on our High Street and we’re not going allow the only D2 building in the vicinity to be changed to suit a large external corporate group religious or otherwise.
Dare I suggest a large and financially robust religious company such as the KICC look a little closer to the home of their existing community to find suitable premises for their congregation. Premises where they will be welcomed by the community they seek to serve and located so the majority of their congregation can access on foot.
As regards Harrys’ concerns re traffic impact of a cinema, the cinema screenings are staggered and set over many days unlike church services that are frequented at key times where the volume of traffic bringing a large congregation from Wimbledon and beyond will too heavy for local
infrastructure to support.
Finally I would just like to add that this territory is not for taking.
Harry
Have you watched the video documentary ‘so you shall reap’?
The KICC are a big business who appear to have a main goal of material gain. You only need note the thousands of pounds donated by parishoners, which is then escorted away by burly minders.
It is also evident that the extreme level of volume that is demonstrated in the video is certainly not suitable for residential area’s. We already have an evangelical church within the vacinity and I have often thought when passing, that I would be extremely unhappy if I were to live next door, especially as the noise sometimes continues into the early hours.
It is my belief that the KICC services will include three Sunday services. I live opposite 25 Church Road and I do not want to be subjected to extreme volumes on a regular basis, especially at the weekends. A cinema would not present such a problem.
Do you not think that after a hard weeks work local residents are entiltled to a degree of peace.
I am a christian and care very much about my fellow men and it is my hope that if God is going to bless Crystal Palace it will be by giving the traders and residents peace and variety rather than ANOTHER church.
Harry
Your comment –
‘it is to say that the good of the community must come first and business interests are never the primary good.’
My response –
EXACTLY – You only have to watch the KICC documentary to realise that the KICC are a big business, whats more they are a big business that will be bringing their patrons with them and excluding sections of our local community. We know this because it is now common knowledge that they discriminate against the homosexuals who make up a large part of our community. These discriminations are far from christian.
We Harry and when I say we I mean the local residents want to continue to live in harmony and this will obviously not be the case should the KICC take up residence in Crystal Palace.
Our community is of the upmost importance and I recent your implication that this is not the case.
f a Large evangelical Church is placed in Church Road it would be detrimental to the whole area.
- There are no adequate parking facilities for large masses such a big Church would attract on Sundays…
- A Church wouldn’t bring economical advantage to the area, being of interest only to a minute minority
of locals who would use the facilities.
A Cinema, on the other hand, would generate activity within this part of the triangle and be beneficial to the whole of Crystal Palace.
- A cinema would provide so much entertainment that few locals would fail to visit it.
- A cinema would entertain all types or people, young and old, literate and illiterate.
- Locals would be withing walking distance of the Cinema hence parking wouldn’t be such an issue.