Letters from Bromley Council reveal the shocking demands the ZhongRong Group made regarding plans for Crystal Palace.

The Chinese developer pledged £500 million to rebuild the iconic structure.

Bromley Council entered into a controversial 16-month exclusivity agreement with the group ending on February 3.

Shortly after, talks continued between the two parties and it was mooted the agreement may be renewed for another six months.

They were issued a two week deadline by the council and Greater London Authority (GLA) to come back with a response by February 20.

But in a letter published by the council, it reveals some of the shocking demands made by the Chinese group leading to the breakdown in negotiations.

In a letter dated February 24, Marc Hume, director of regeneration and transformation, voiced his regret over the group’s response to the conditions of extending the exclusivity agreement.

MORE TOP STORIES Instead of agreeing, the group stated they would only consider them if the council first signed a "Revised Lease Document".

It requested terms which over the past year the council repeatedly made clear were 'non-negotiable'.

Some of these include the ZhongRong Group repeatedly requesting the entire top half of the park, when the council stressed they would be limited to the Top Site, with further extension only if justified.

The group was willing to provide a business plan, but only for the council's perusal and not for them to have any say in the content.

They also did not consider planning permission necessary, and wanted to build at their discretion.

Future funding and management of the park was a grey area, with all provisions removed from the Chinese's plans.

They also deleted any reference to paying the councils 'significant' costs in pursuing the agreement.

Lastly, they wished to have an initial 125 year lease, immediately increasing to 500 years when amendments to the Crystal Palace Acts were passed.

The council clearly stated that any term must not exceed 250 years, but a provision to extent that term was acceptable.

Mr Hume states in his letter: "It is clear that you have taken no account of the Council’s concerns and have ignored our requirements."

READ OUR PREVIOUS COVERAGE HERE.