Say ‘No’ to further retail at Bell Green

THESE STREETS BELONG TO US - say ‘NO’ to further retail development at BELL GREEN

Meeting: 8pm, at Livesey Hall, Bell Green –Tuesday 4 April.

**The Sydenham Society is working together with These Streets Belong to Us to oppose further plans for more retail development at the Bell Green Retail Park. **

Representing the rich local heritage of Lower Sydenham, alongside the Livesey Memorial Hall and the Grade 2 Memorial to local residents who lost their lives during WW1, the blue gasholders are under threat of demolition, to be replaced by more out of town retail stores according to plans just submitted to Lewisham Council. We believe their heritage should be protected and celebrated and not torn down. The gasholders are a key part of Sydenham’s history and should be incorporated into an ambitious scheme of which the community can be proud.**

The existing retail park has increased traffic with more heavy goods vehicles clogging up roads and spitting out toxic fumes. Our streets need to be cleaner, safer and more friendly. Further out of town retail units should be stopped and investment should be made in our high streets in Sydenham, Forest Hill and Catford.

The Sydenham Society is working with ‘These Streets Belong to Us’ (residents in and around Houston Road, Perry Vale), who already live in streets overloaded with heavy goods vehicles delivering to the existing retailers at Bell Green. Additional heavy goods vehicles on what were residential roads will become intolerable.
The Sydenham Society will be holding its AGM on Tuesday 8 April at 7pm in Livesey Hall. All members are welcome. It is an open meeting and other local residents are welcome to attend.
At 8pm Steve Grindlay, well known local historian, will give a short illustrated talk about the history of the gasworks. The meeting will then discuss the problems local residents anticipate with further retail development and other possible alternatives for this site.

To sign the online petition go to http://tinyurl.com/SaveBellGreen

What would you rather it be used for?

We don’t want to see the gasholders removed. They are part of the historical heritage of Lower Sydenham along with the Livesey Memorial Hall and the War Memorial to those who died in WW1. If they must go then let’s have some open space - why not green up Bell Green?

What is not wanted is more retail and more heavy goods lorries on our roads.

I think the issue here is, the demand by the locals for more retail is clearly high enough for investors to pour in millions to redevelop the area. If the demand is that high, then the locals will still use cars for long journeys, caught in traffic to visit the nearest alternative, which may be miles away.

As for the historic nature, the cottages and original works were far more historic than the holders themselves. They went years ago. The holders meanwhile will require maintenance for many decades to come if left in situ. Who should pay for that?

While I admire the message, the reality is hard to avoid. A growing area needs growing resources.

I’m not particularly sentimental about the gasholders, but I agree that this is a missed opportunity to do something a bit different. If money was no problem I would convert one of the gas holder into an Imax cinema:

image.jpg826×736 329 KB

Possibly with a standard cinema next door.

The new Aldi could find a home on Sydenham High Road in a ready made supermarket which recently closed.

My understanding is the Hall would remain we would just be losing two rusty old gas holders and increasing the job opportunities for the area? If the gas holders were of significant historical value surely English Heritage or the National Lottery would support their retention?

I agree in principal but I would prefer to promote a well thought out alternative plan which has a positive message. I don’t want to sound too critical but it is very easy to say what we don’t want rather than what we do. There is a gert long thread on here about what people would like to see and of course opinion differs.
Give me a positive alternative to what has been proposed.

To me, THIS is historic. The old operation, the buildings etc

Many gas holders around London have been removed. Once no longer in use, they are an excess, and expensive to maintain. As much as a part of the landscape they are, it is something that can be managed without.

As @Wynell has said, it is unlikely a memorial and existing hall would be removed. IF that becomes the plan, stopping that part of things would get far more attention. I would welcome some of the suggestions for further retail. I would mean I could shop without using my car, as oppose to driving somewhere.

Are these streets really overloaded with heavy goods vehicles? When? I cross Houston Road all the time and can’t recall ever seeing a HGV using it.

Michael posted a basic plan in December which clearly shows the Hall existing in the new layout I believe this was produced by the developer. Not sure how to copy here but can be viewed in that post under Bell Green development.

I have to say here I think locals are concerned about the amount of traffic flooding their Roads. Maybe we should think about this too…

I think they might be thinking it will be paramount if more retail space is created & possibly may have to move because of the noise created by even more traffic.

Just a thought!

Also as has been pointed out on the other thread, this won’t be offering anything new in the way of retail, it’s just another Aldi when there is already one in Catford, plus there are 3 Lidl supermarkets (very similar offering) nearby. I don’t think this is a necessary development for local residents, it is merely Aldi wanting to take market share from Sainsbury’s.

Most developments of this type are based on market research if there was no demand they would not be built. Budgens in Sydenham obviously was not successful so it closed but that was a trade off deal with the coop. If Aldi dent Sainsburys turnover then there will be a price war so shoppers benefit.

Slightly off-topic, but the Budgens in Sydenham has closed because the whole Budgens group has gone into administration. That site has had a supermarket on it for as long as I can remember and there is no reason to think another wouldn’t be successful.

Budgens is a franchise operation the owner of some 34 stores has gone into administration. Not sure if all the stores are in danger

All the Budgens stores have been closed. Transcript of the press release on this thread on the Sydenham forum.
https://sydenham.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=16859&p=151711&hilit=Budgens#p151711

As Wynell says Budgens is a franchise operation, the owner of 34 stores has gone into administration.
Budgens Stores Ltd is owned by the Booker Group who are in discussions about a £3.7bn takeover by Tesco.

Indeed. My point is that the viability of that site for a supermarket can’t be judged on the failure of the last tenant, that tenant being Budgens.

I think people confuse what THEY would like to see locally, and what business giants see as a business opportunity.

Just because some people don’t want to see a certain retail outlet in a certain location, the information from the businesses usually pans out well.
For large expanding businesses like Aldi, they have a huge catch up to do with the other retail giants

Leaving it empty is pointless, housing can’t be built. Home park is 5 mins away. Putting retail or local services on there makes perfect sense.
And as already been said, the existing buildings are safe.

Sorry but the Aldi in Catford is a tip. Apparently the photo on any box is not enough, you need to open the box, look at the contents and then discard them on the floor.

Just to say I live in Houston Road - and I can categorically state that HGV use our road all the time day and night. We’ve had a car end up in our garden, rubbish litters our street due to McDonald’s, and the pollution is awful. My daughter has asthma and the health visitor says it’s probably because of the traffic on our road.

When the further developments up at bell green opened the volume of traffic massively increased. We absolutely don’t need more retail units up there which will just increase the flow of traffic more. IF - and I say IF - the council ever took note of our concerns then I wouldn’t have an issue.

The limit values for air pollution are already exceeded throughout that area and further development will only make this worse.

The job creation issue is just a massive red herring by then - on close inspection it only creates 50or so low paid low skilled jobs. If that’s what we want our area to be known for then I say encourage it.

There isn’t a single resident in the area that I’ve spoken to who wants this development. The previous public consultation pre planning showed the extent of the opposition - but clearly the developers took these sentiments seriously and have just ploughed on ahead.

Further more I would also suggest that people who like their high streets e.g. Sydenham and forest hill should be very concerned. I think the last development took approx 20% of footfall from those areas - small local businesses suffered. We got a grant from central government on that basis. Surely people don’t want to see that money wasted.

Personally if there had to be development that I would like it to be something led with and by local residents.

Beige just to say I live on that road and I very much disagree with you. You’re welcome to come sit in my living room to understand the impact of the traffic on our lives.

I don’t doubt Houston Road gets more than it’s fair share of traffic, it’s pretty much what Brockley Rise feeds into, and it’s terrible to think it’s affecting the health of your family.

Do you get a lot Sainsbury’s delivery vehicles too?

@Didievans, according to Google Street View, there’s a 7.5 tonne weight limit on Houston Road and Cranston Road. I’ll agree it’s not always easy to determine whether a lorry is 7.5 tonnes or more (unless you read trucker magazines!) but I certainly hope you aren’t getting articulated lorries which I’m sure would be well over the limit.

The larger HGVs should not be coming down Brockley Rise straight on towards Houston Road.

Andy thank you for this. I can tell you that I and others on our street have looked into this in quite some detail. We get coaches, massive articulated lorries and all manner of other vehicles that smash through that limit.

Add further developments and they will spill onto the other residential roads in the area. I know this with certainty having seen the impact that the gaswork repairs had on traffic. This isn’t some issue that sits in the abstract this is people’s lives/businesses that are and will be affected. Haseltine school sits right on that junction where the air pollution levels are well in excess of legal limits.

As far as I’ve been able to tell, coaches aren’t covered by the weight limits which are only for heavy goods vehicles. But I’d love to be proved wrong. We get those Clarkes coaches on Sunderland Road fairly often but I haven’t yet found anything to say that they also have to obey the weight limits.

But arctics? That’s a nonsense. Smartphone the b******s and tell their head office.

Does anyone know who these things should be reported to? I’ve singularly failed to find out whether it’s a police matter or the local authority - and I’ve even asked officers on patrol and they didn’t know!

Most likely local authorities, but can always give the local police a tweet to ask.
Enforcement for it is tough, like many other things, but if it is happening, it should be taken seriously.

That said, I am sure that the majority of the goods vehicles stick with the main roads for the ease of getting around. Not entirely sure that a couple of new retail outlets are in any way going to heavily affect the local traffic.

Another idea is to tweet the companies of the lorries breaking the limits and using residential roads. A lot of companies would take this quite seriously.

Interesting read re the weight subject

From this article it would appear it is more a local authority issue.

Another good reason to get rid of these?

Maybe the Mayor is the man to speak to about this. Certainly on a conquest at the moment.

The gaswork repairs were under the main road and nothing to do with actual gas holders. It was because the road couldn’t cope with the weight and volume of traffic - so a reason to oppose. Our streets are not made to hold this volume.

Need to jump in here, local residents will be effected by more unsociable traffic causing many problems.

Just sayin from what I’ve been told!

I think that was clearly the object of the post already.

Would like to know the research done and numbers for the increase in through traffic.

I totally understand the dread of more traffic, but don’t think that is going to be an overwhelming factor, certainly not big enough to put a stop to it.

This is a genuine question - I’d be keen to know where that stat comes from and which area of local businesses suffered - Sydenham, FH or elsewhere. I can’t understand why a pet shop, a toy shop, an electrical shop and a DIY place would have made much difference to either of those.

Hey folks, there was a meeting last night by the Sydenham society, local councillors, fh society and residents. I have some traffic figures! So the new Aldi are expecting to have at LEAST five 20 - 30 tonne articulated vehicles each day accessing the site. There will be a car park for 100 cars. There will also be 130 employees based a the new gas works site, with vans. There will also be a restaurant and storage site. On top of this there will be 200 more staff, who if even 40% of them drive that’s another 80 cars a day. Assuming the 100 space car park is for customers, the staff will presumably being parking on surrounding residential streets. There are also 7 bus routes which service the area, although this may increase too, and this is on top of the existing 8 retail units and 15 trade units already there. That’s delivery lorries, customers and staff all using this site and there is no proposal to change the existing access roads. This is a MASSIVE amount of additional traffic!

I can understand that if you don’t live near the site then you feel that it won’t have an impact on you. You’ll probably just have to queue a bit longer to get to B&Q at the weekend. However, for those of us who have lived in the streets around Bell Green and experienced the changes since the development first started, it really has been life changing. We have traffic, and yes hgv lorries, going down Houston Road day and night making deliveries to this area. We are regular woken in the night by them and our houses shake when they go by. The 7.5 tn limit is rarely enforced. At weekends and on bank holidays there is a persistent queue of traffic down our street by people trying to reach the retail park. The noise, pollution, litter from McDonnell’s, and quite allot of the time angst from the drivers is quite frankly disgusting and i really don’t want it to get worse.

That aside, the Aldi have also stated that they hope to draw customers away from Sydenham and Forest Hill high streets, so its not just those who live beside it who will be effected but our lovely high street, where the traders association has worked so hard to save and improve, will also be effected. I love forest hill and the people who live here, its a wonderful community and i’d really like to stay here. So please, if you feel like you could support us then do. Sign the petition or even better object to the planning application here mailto:planning@lewisham.org.uk before 17th April.

Thank you

That makes a very strong case, thanks for taking the time to share these stats with us @Nicki_Reddington.

I use Bell Green a lot and always drive. However, your comments made me pause for thought. There are times when I drive to Bell Green for a big shopping spree, but could have got everything I needed in Forest Hill Sainsbury. Now I know about the free parking on offer in Forest Hill I think I’ll stay local - and may spend more time in other high st shops as a result.

Thanks Chris, we do really have a lovely high street in FH, i intend to use it more too!

Good points from both @Nicki_Reddington and @ChrisBeach

With so much at stake for Forest Hill businesses has the @FHTA got a plan to retain and increase their business? The council doesn’t have sole responsibility surely?

I’ll speak to the rest of the FHTA exec about this

@Michael or @Nicki_Reddington do any of you have minutes from last nights meeting?

Hmm, not sure. It was a sort of open forum discussion. Lots of people there who stood up and spoke (sydenham society, FH society, councillors, residents etc) I’ll see if there’s any minutes from the Sydenham Soc. i’ll let you know !

Cheers Nicki x

Pauline - hi I chaired the discussion on it. Suffice to say there was a strong turn out and NO ONE was in favour from Bellingham, Sydenham and Perry Vale wards. The developers will fight dirty.

What I do know is that the area ISNT zoned for retail so can be turned down. councillors who aren’t on planning committee were there and spoke - they are against any more retail developments. Simply put the roads/infrastructure around can’t support any more traffic. AND more importantly the pull of people away from high streets and local community when so much has been invested in trying to regenerate it is not wanted.

We’re trying to pull together some key objections - Nicki’s figures are critical. Air pollution levels up there are already at illegal levels I think.

We’re doing posters for shops locally as we’re so concerned this will impact local businesses. I really think this is something we should all be pulling together on. The developers will fight dirty I’m sure - the public consultation already showed overwhelming opposition but they still put it in AND timed it to be over easter.

Individual objections need to go in - planning@lewisham.gov.uk

Thanks for this @Didievans will look into it more & make all FH Traders aware on our Google group.

@Simon just checking you’ve saw this!

Please email me all info you have on this sugarmountain.info@gmail.com

@Didievans & @Nicki_Reddington Just to let you know I’ll add this to our next FHTA meeting agenda.

ETA

Amazing thank you. Objections have to be in by 18th April. They’re planning a massive Aldi, “restaurant” and cafe.

I think that site if anything it should e use for a nice park with sensory garden for children with disabilitys

Almost to scared to post that but am I the only one who would love to have more retail in bell green, I don’t think there is anything to preserve and welcome more shops, however I absolutely support the traffic issue and it should not impact on people living there. I don’t think there is any chance to stop more retail moving in and the focus should be how the traffic can be sorted out to lessen the impact on the neighbourhood , any shops down there offer complete different range to dartmouth road so I can’t see how it would impact the shops there unless you can tell me where I can get clear decking varnish on dartmouth road and I am happy to buy it there

Couldn’t disagree more

Your post means nothing speak up

I think the issue is that there is a fear that people tend to go to Bell Green to get decking varnish or whatever but while they are there they pop into a big retail unit and get maybe some nice ham from the deli counter instead of going to Il Mirto and pick up some sweets instead of going to Sugar Mountain or getting a quick veg shop in rather than going to Waters…
Centers such as Bell Green do act as magnets that attract footfall which to some extent takes it away from surrounding areas. I don’t think that there is any doubt that they do damage to local shops. That is not to say that they should be banned or discouraged but local protest should be taken into account…
My personal take on this development is that it totally lacks any imagination and is just about the easiest, laziest and cheapest thing that could be done with the place. It adds nothing of any real value to the local area while at the same time it will impose more traffic and more large vehicles on our surrounding streets. Having said that I haven’t really seen any alternative plans put forward and no doubt commercialism will win the day.

I do get what you are saying and it would all be true if there were no Sainsbury’s in forest hill because the only trade I take away is from there by shopping in the big one. I think people need to support the independent shops but thinking off my own shopping habits the farmers market is the only place where u would shop and at the same time would not visit the independent shops. I really want the high street to be successful I just don’t get the argument about bell green seems more than a popular excuse to me, traffic seems to be the issue so that what should be concentrated on

Like to add that the best outcome would be that Aldi would move downstairs at heron house that would increase the footfall on dartmouth road rather than be bypassed by people walking up to Sainsbury’s

Or even better Paddy Power or Budgens in Sydenham

It means I disagree with the idea that we should say no to the bell green development. Those big blue eyesores need to go so we make use of the space for something more practical.

Thanks fir clarifying

There’s also the middle ground, which I occupy: I’d like to see the site developed, but find the currently plans uninspiring. It only takes a few tweaks to make a development better. Imagine if the units below the new flats had been let as several smaller units instead of being knocked through into a maze and plastered with ugly Sports Direct window decals and posters.

That’s why I call you the voice of reason

That Sports Direct branch is a hideous eyesore. It’s spectacularly bad, and bizarre in being so far from anything else comparable.

Not sure but wouldn’t the Sports Direct place be equally horrible if it were something else? At least part of the issue is that the exterior looks like breeze block that’s yet to have the decorative cladding put on. Is that a problem with the planning permission that was granted?

No, because it should be several smaller units so the signage would be different and there might not even be signage on that side of the building at all. And certainly not all the posters and decals that despoil the windows.

The bare breeze blocks are a ‘design feature’ and there to stay. Sadly.

If they were that historic they would have listed status? Of course those people interested in keeping them should be happy to stump up the cash to preserve them.

I like industrial architecture as much as the next man but these gas holders do nothing for me and I really don’t see what they add to the community. Happy for them to be dismantled - as long as no one uses a blowtorch to take them apart. Otherwise, this is what Bell Green will look like…

Thanks for the edit, @system. What should I be doing in future?

Ah that was an automated technical thingy (downloading remotely-hosted images for safekeeping) that members really don’t need to be notified about.

I’ll raise this with the developers.. I have changed a setting that should prevent these notifications in future.

There’s actually a skate park inside one of the gas holders - I’ve never been but apparently a few spent a few quid building it & you have to climb inside to use it. Maybe this could be extended

Interesting fact about gas holders…

The Oval Gasholders is the unofficial name given to the gas holder (gasometer) located near The Oval in London, England. It was built in 1853[1] and is officially called Kennington Holder Station by its owners, Southern Gas Network.[2] It is a grade II listed building with the listed part of them known as Gasholder No. 1.

There are many reasons to oppose the proposed development, but as above, I think that retaining these gas holders would be a challenge.

They’re not unique, distinctive or of special historical significance, as far as I know, and as metal structures they would cost money on a yearly basis to safely maintain.

In general, I’m not a great fan of Bell Green. It feels very nineties to me and completely out of place in a densifying London - a bit of a missed opportunity really. How come they got away with allocating that much space to car-parking when there isn’t sufficient land available to build enough homes (and schools, nurseries, medical centres, for that matter)? Surely if a car-owning customer base is so critical to convince commercial tenants to settle, which I totally get, then a multi-story or basement car-parking should be the way to do it, all tucked away behind good architecture creating some attractive public realm while we’re at redeveloping the lot.
Instead, all we’ve ended up with are vast fields of tarmac with a few single-storey sheds of steel to make it look as cheep and cheerful as possible, pouring the value of the site down the drain. The race-course like road layout with its multi-phased pedestrian crossings finishes the job perfectly.

Given that the damage is done, they may as well complete the job. I suspect it will be for the interim only, say a mere fifteen years, before all of this will come down again making way for something better.
The bit that they should really focus on as part of the extension is improving public transport provision to reduce some of the car use - and not building any more parking spaces! The bus routes to SE23, in particular towards the Brockley Rise corridor, are unattractive at best. For instance, I’m convinced that an extension of the 172 bus via Cranston Road and Houston Road could help, but try and sell this to people living on these streets - I suspect they’d rather have a few hundred extra cars per day instead of a single bus.
The bus stops at Bell Green are in a dire state, seemingly located as far from the shops as possible with walking routes which are compromised in some places, and plain unsafe in others.
All in all, it’s a place I only visit if I really must and I’m happy after I’ve left it again, musing about why they couldn’t come up with anything better than this.

To avoid any doubt, I’m all for having the kind of shops which are present at Bell Green and I think they add to the attractiveness of the area in general, just not like this in the 21st century in the middle of a capital city that struggles with space and a lack of attractive urban realm.

Read up on the quality of the land. Not suitable for housing.

What do you mean, because it is contaminated?
I suspect there could be things that can be done about this. If it is good to sell goods that people eat then it can’t be so bad that you couldn’t improve the ground for houses being built on.
It becomes very much an economic argument then which is why I’m sure that the barracks will come down in a few years again unless the economy goes downhill.

Sorry I thought the info was on this thread, but apparently not. My mistake.

By all accounts the land on the area is not suitable for housing due to contaminated land from its old uses.
This was certainly the case when Sainsburys was built, and considerations were given so not to disturb some parts of the ground.
The cost of decontamination makes the viability for housing “unlikely” at best.

This is a small quote from one older investigation carried out.

Old Gas Works Site, Lewisham, London SE6
The Bell Green Gas Works Site is riddled with dangerous contaminants, such as coal tar, that
have leaked into the River Pool which runs through the site. Warning signs have been erected
along the river bank by the Council since a children’s playground borders the river. A report
by independent environmental consultants in 1987 concluded that “the river bed and banks
will remain a public hazard whilst coal tar continues to gain access to the culvert”. The site
has yet to be cleaned up.

There are some developments being done around the UK these days where ground sheeting is used to seal the contaminants in, and then agreements are made with the residents that they must NOT dig deeper than 12-18" in their own gardens.
One possibility I guess, but I believe unlikely.

As for the difference between building shops or houses, and residing in them, or selling goods from them. I would say that would be down to ground disturbance, and duration spent there. Again, just a guess as I am no expert here.

This seems a good document to have a read through for all concerned. Having a gander myself now.

Thank you! I’ll keep it in mind next time I have a drink at Sainsbury’s café or McDonald’s.
On that note, there are a few new builds at Silver Birch Close very close to the site - maybe the clue is in the name…

Interesting exert, which has clearly NOT turned out to be the case re traffic movement.

6.64 Two main factors for local residents which will be affected are noise and air quality
impact. Dealing firstly with noise it is recognised that commercial use of this part of
the site will generate a level of noise and activity. However, commercial use of the
site is long established. That said, it is important to control the delivery and
operational hours for the proposed uses to ensure that excessive noise and
disturbance does not arise at unreasonable hours. Extant consents allow for the
following operational and delivery times. Whilst the operational hours are extensive
this has previously been deemed to be acceptable given the nature of the use,
surrounding commercial uses and distance of the site from residential properties
(over 60m). It is considered reasonable and appropriate to control the same times
as part of this application particularly as less floorspace is now proposed and
therefore there will be less impact on neighbours than that previously deemed to be
acceptable. An appropriate condition is recommended.
Operational Times
06:30 – 23:00 Monday to Sunday (including bank holidays)
Deliveries
06:30 – 20:00 Monday to Friday
06:30 – 16:00 Saturday
06:30 – 13:00 Sundays and bank holidays.
6.65 The submitted ES addresses noise and vibration issues during construction and
operation as discussed in section 6.4 of this report. Subject to the recommended
mitigation measures (which will be controlled by conditions) it is not considered that
unacceptable harm to neighbouring amenity will occur.
6.66 Turning to the second issue of air quality. Chapter 7 of the ES deals with the air
quality impact of the proposal (construction and operational) in detail. During the
construction phase, as a result of the scale of development and types of buildings
proposed it is considered that air quality impact will be negligible. During operation
air quality impact is also considered to be negligible. It is important to note that a
sufficient reduction in floorspace will lead to less traffic movements which will result
in less air pollution than the extant scheme.
6.67 Overall it is not considered that the current proposal would have a significant
adverse impact.

Seems there is (was) an argument both ways in 2009 by Lewisham and the Sydenham Society

2. The Council has designated the site as “unsuitable for residential because of contamination”. The Sydenham Society believes that acceptable methods of building houses on contaminated brownfield sites are now available and has argued that this is also an alternative method of regenerating this site. The latest Phase III proposals now show that the Council is prepared to depart from the adopted UDP designation.

I guess the question is who would be responsible for the costly remediation of the land. The council in order to increase the attractiveness of the property? Or the developer who may find the high cost unworkable?

Depends on how much you spend decontaminating any site. Some £5-6m on Bell Green to cover it with tarmac and retail sheds.

Housing on the Greenwich site built on, at about the same time, had some £65m of remediation spent on it.

The government has made money available for brownfield remediation in the past. Would be unlikely to get it if the council wasn’t really pushing for residential development though.

In the case of the retail park at Bell Green in 1994 and the Greenwich Village housing a couple of years later, it was the developers who paid. They were making enough profit - they could afford it.

Anyone objecting to the proposed plans should be sending their objections in this weekend - deadline next Tuesday, 17 April. Email to planning@lewisham.gov.uk giving reasons as to why they object - name and address of objectors should be included.

Or, being fair-minded, anyone in favour can also let planners know their opinions as to why they consider this site should be made over to more retail.

As a resident of Cranston Road, I’m a bit puzzled as to where this plague of HGVs affecting Houston Road comes from or goes to. We very rarely get HGVs up here, just the occasional mid-weight truck and some Clarke’s coaches on weekends.

I also find the ‘Council experts say the land is unsuitable for residential property owing to contamination’ ‘They’re wrong! It can be remediated dead easily! I know this because, er, um, I believe it!’ to be a bit off, to be honest.

Interesting

Another Cranston resident here - I have to agree with @Baboonery in that I don’t see any HGVs on our road. Well no artics - just, as said, the occasional large lorry, coach or training bus…

The Forest Hill Society objection can now be viewed online.

I am assuming that all members of the Forest Hill Society do not shop or visit the Bell Green retail Area? They will obviously boycott any future shops should they be built.
Of course they will be happy to fund maintenance of the Gas Holders and relieve others of any such commitment. Members who own or manage companies will create jobs (even low level) to match those that their objection if successful will deny. Seems to me that pure objection with no alternative solution or suggestion is just negativity.

The proposed use of the site is against Lewisham’s planning policy (and national guidelines). The Forest Hill Society agrees with the council that additional A1 food retail is not what is needed on this site - and the existing empty supermarket in Sydenham is where additonal food retail is best located.

As with all planning applications, speculative alternative uses are not regarded as reasons for refusal, so no such proposals have been included in the objection. But just because somebody can propose a use does not necessarily mean that it is either right for the location or the best use of the site.

You are welcome to write in to support the application if you feel that it is really the best use of the site. The good news is that the planning department will base their decision on existing policy and planning law, not on the whims of a business or a purely NIMBY attitude (which I do not believe applies in this case).

Out of interest did you actually read the objection in full before making your comment?

In my opinion if the site within Sydenham was appropriate for a supermarket then perhaps the last two occupants would have been successful?
Whilst planning rules are valid in some cases they are made in general and not for individual locations.(i have experience dealing with Dept of Environment, CPRE, MAFF as well as council planning policy)

I did read through the objections and do not agree that the gas holders represent some enhancement to the area, however, like my comments that is my opinion.
I have been supportive of changes to FH parking facilities to help promote activity and improve the experience. The facilities that will be ncluded in the proposals do not conflict with any individual retailers and may introduce more competitive pricing for foodstuffs.

I believe the traffic problems for the area have more to do with lack of investment in the South Circular and surrounding road’s, as well as a general lack of infrastructure for public transport in SE London.

I also disagree that providing an alternative plan is not required, merely objecting without it leaves the decision to be yes or no. Whereas an alternative may gather more support and if the council is to serve its ratepayers then it may achieve a result you support. Status quo is never the answer.

Bugdens closed because the chain went bankrupt, not because of a specific failing of the store. Previously the store has been passed from one chain to another as part of mergers and diversification. I believe that Aldi could make that site work well and would provide competition and increased footfall to the high street in Sydenham.

The planning rules in this case are both national guidelines and highly specific site allocations following detailed discussion during planning application, judicial review, and council planning consultations. There is a justified concern that out of centre developments harm town centres by reducing footfall rather than simply by competing with existing businesses.

If you want alternatives then a number appear in this thread. The site could be used for housing and other types of retail or something fun - like a cinema, ice rink, or trampoline park - something that we don’t have already within a mile of the site.

Aldi specifically excluded residential from above their shop in this planning application (according to my discussion with the developer). The lack of inclusion of more housing and development of only a single storey demonstrates a lack of imagination regarding the potential uses of this site. But none of these arguments are relevant to the planning process as the council do need to make a yes or no decision - there is no alternative choice that they may recommend beyond the ideas contained in the core strategy and site allocations report.

I didn’t realise that the site contamination extended to the river Pool. Does this mean that the Ravensbourne is affected too and so Deptford Creek and Thames? If so, there is more to this than a contaminated Bell Green site.

Maybe contaminated, but kingfishers haven’t objected

Well quite. So just how bad is this contamination and what is the risk that impacts residential rather than commercial?

Successful companies don’t go Bankrupt?

Disagree councils can exercise variations, if a cinema, ice rink, bowling alley was viable operators would be clamouring to open. Indeed if a cinema was profitable then the Capitol would have been snapped up by now.

As stated we are all entitled to an opinion and I have expressed mine, we choose to differ and I respect that. Yours is not going to change and neither is mine so we will have to wait for the final decision.

Bell green is a retail park and that’s that it won’t be pretty but it will and should extend and it will, it’s a dine deal and it’s the only usage which makes sense. I am supporting that the traffic situation needs to be sorted but the kind of development which is already down there will be extended, let’s move on you can’t polish a turd as they say and why should you, its convenient its practical and it is a fone deal no matter how many objections, how can you stop a area earmarked to be a retail park to become a retail park , Sydenham and forest hill society are 19 years to lateand while I am wholeheartedly support the forest hill society great work generally it’s a dead end in my openion

It is not inevitable that the development of the remainder of the site also has to be retail park. I’d rather it was developed than not, but the nature of the development is not yet a done deal.

When you say it is ‘earmarked’ to be a retail park, what do you mean?

I
Mean that this is the last stage to be developed and there is actually a retailer to take it in in this case Aldi so I don’t really understand what the fuss is about, I doubt that anybody would
Like to live above an Aldi should the request for flats come into play with a lovely view of a car park, those retail parks exist all around London and I would be interested if anyone from this forum ever been to the memorial home, I just think the focus is ill judged while the Sydenham society should focus about the high street and I doubt the postcode is se23 down there therefore is a bit of a non starter but I leave it now and ditch back and see, maybe we end up with a lovely park down there nobody is interested to use

I like the idea of the secret skatepark to be extended, though I’m probably biased as my son & his skatey (not a real word I know, but I do have to try & keep up with their skateboarding lingo) friends climbed in the other day and loved it!

All I know about Livesay Hall is that Dusan (ex owner of the Railway Telegraph) used to host supper club banquets there which were really impressive, not sure if he still does.

AND I think THE Alexander O’Neil played there about a year ago.

I’m sure @Alice showed me pics of this with @TomAngel & I was gutted I missed the man himself.

For these reasons alone I hope Livesay Memorial Hall stays

Why do you say that? Do you have some sort of insight into the minds of the local populace that others don’t have or are you, like the rest of us, just expressing your own interests? Parks and recreational spaces are pretty popular, although of course they don’t really make any money for anyone so they are difficult to develop.

I also don’t get the whole done deal thing. Planning processes are open to public consultation which may or may not be taken into account - it isn’t a done deal at all.

The hall will remain as it is outlined in the plans so there is no worry about that and no I do not have any insight i a am just realistic and some battles are not worth fighting for but please object and we might get a nicer looking Aldi in the end. I will sit back and watch while it is getting g build

As you said … [quote=“Insight, post:98, topic:3995”]
you can’t polish a turd as they say and why should you
[/quote]

Am I misunderstanding or is there an illegal gathering and health and safety nightmare happening at Bell Green?

Not sure if they were allowed, though I did tell tne kids about tnis.

I might have told them & maybe they weren’t allowed

I don’t mind getting in trouble though

Cause they had so much fun

With all the contamination on the site, should be easy to spot the skaters as the will have a slight glow

Well they were all sweating when they got back if that counts, I think climbing in and out took it out of them

Exercise is good

Not just a new park in King’s Cross gasholders, it seems

Also this striking conversion in Dublin

AllianceGasometerDublin.jpg800×533 93.1 KB

Sources here and here

Our/Sydsoc thoughts on this coincide.
Thanks for posting.
Pat

Kings cross, Dublin , Sydenham surely that is a winning argument , are these developments social housing or is the campaign to build an upmarket development with views on the car park?

Imagination and sensitivity to local context can help anywhere, and people in any kind of tenure.

Yes, let’s just copy everything done elsewhere that looks a bit nice. That way, we’ll avoid the place being just another identikit retail p-what? eh? oh.

News report on BBC London.

Hello it would be a great site.for an adventure play ground for all ages with disabilities with sensor garden etc

Surely so would Home Park? Which already has facilities in it.