Bell Green Gasometers – A Compromise

I draft this compromise proposal with the intent that I will have diligently avoided any criticism of any party’s expressed views or actions. If in reading it you you feel I have failed – please bring it to my attention.

Equally – as you read It and reach an early view that the proposal is as outrageous as the original Kier proposal – please read it to the end and weigh up what I have drafted fully – and consider it in the round.

Some will dislike – if not hate - it, others will say “so what” - and I hope others may say there is merit in it. And just perhaps – some may be converted to its efficacies. Most of all – it is to be hoped that an acceptable compromise can be reached.

It is proposed that either one or two bays of the existing gasometers be salvaged, restored and painted. It is further proposed that the refurbished bay or bays be re-erected on a location on site that should be selected by others with a better aesthetic sense than mine.

The proposal is intended to present an emblematic and iconic representation of the gasholders whilst freeing the site of constraints that prevent the construction of affordable housing at a cost that is acceptable. There is precedent – there is a significant and large piece of artwork present in Phase 3.

Theoretically, that is it – you could stop reading here – however the details and rationale appear below.

The Backgound

The ongoing debate about the historic importance of the Bell Green Gasometers and the conflicted views about their visual amenity – both positive and negative – could drag on interminably and without resolution.

Alternatively – SGN’s demolition agent might soon submit a full blown and complete construction stage Method Statement that will prove to be competent and the demolition will proceed.

It must be noted that Emma Talbot, Head of Planning, stated prior approval IS REQUIRED and NOT GIVEN for the proposed development and that the Council has considered the method of demolition has been determined to be UNACCEPTABLE by virtue of insufficient information She does not invoke the Local Listing – and this may be indicative of the council’s delineated position that the Local Listing carries no weight.

The modified demolition would open up the site and free it from the significant constriction presented by the existence of the gasometers. As converse as it seems, a constraint free housing development – with affordable housing at its core - could be built at reasonable cost.

Alternatively and equally the Council may find funding and provide funding in perpetuity to SGN or a new developer to maintain the gasholders. Thereby the constraints on housing development would remain and drive up unit construction costs.

Having worked with English Heritage (now reformed as Historic England) for a few years, I know that when proposals to Nationally List a property or structure or site are considered, great weight is given by the organisation as to how the proposed listing is to be curated or presented in terms of historic accuracy.

For those of us who lived next to the gasometers, the cycle of the raising and lowering of the bells was their dominant feature so we would be more often than not be presented by a raised grey/sky blue set of bells with a rust belt stain. The idealistic and stylised photography we now see frequently are of the ribs only. The times this view was presented in their operational life was very short in duration. I have reviewed many collections of historic and contemporary pictures and it is only in recent months that pictures of the ribs begin to appear. The historic collections - so far – have virtually no pictures of the gasworks site and none at all of the gasometers. I have found a couple of technical documents attached to planning applications for previous phases at the wider site with one or two pictures. But so far – no more.

The Compromise Proposal

1. Let the demolition proposal be modified to salvage at least one bay complete, that is two standard/columns/stanchions and sets of trellis girders or two bays complete, that is three standard/columns/stanchions and sets of trellis girders.

2. Let the modified demolition proposal and site remediation work proceed unhindered.

3. Let these salvaged materials be fully restored and then treated with a paint system that will minimise maintenance and future re-paint cycles. (Even the Forth Rail Bridge does not now need doing again for 25 years and no longer needs constant repainting.)

4. Let the restored salvaged material be re-erected on site on a location selected by others with a better aesthetic sense than mine and and help to create an emblematic and iconic representation of the site’s history juxtapositioned with the Livesey Hall.

5. Let some of the rejected Kier’s proposal be adopted in any new development: restore off-street parking for patrons of the Livesey Hall; restore the traffic management SCOOT proposals; add increase parking restrictions on the Livesey Hall side of Perry Hill to reduce tailbacks thereon; most difficult of all – ask our council to track down where the circa £2m of s106 monies are – and are they still available for works to widen the Southend Lane Bridge. (This could be the hardest task of all to achieve)

The Benefits

1. A compromise that a majority of our community can support.

2. A site made ready for a development of affordable housing at unit construction costs that are realistic achieved by avoiding the constraint of having to build around or in the gasometers themselves.

3. A compromise that creates an emblematic and iconic representation of the site’s history.

4. A site made available to alleviate the pressure on the Council to meet housing development targets.

5. A site made available for the improvement of green space issues referred to in the reasons for rejection of the Kier planning application.

6. A site made available that can have a range of flexible facilties and amenities incorporated within a housing development (play areas, gardens and the like) .

Not a great picture – but you get the idea - just imagine the structure without the lean…

Admirable effort, there are problems with the contamination of the site which I understand precludes use for housing be that affordable or luxury.
The idea of using a part of the structure as a symbolic feature is great.

Sadly the money has probably gone so widening the bridge may have to rely on any developer stumping up some cash. That will only happen if it is commercially viable. Lets hope some or all of your suggestions sway the future decisions.

I was hoping the remediation works would embrace any residual contamination - it appears to be accepted that there is some.

@ThorNogson’s revised assessment of monies unspent in housing allocations is just around £6m - that would also help.

Interestingly, demoplition objectors dont look like they are interested in compromise. There were writing tones of huge posts on how they want to save the gas holders, but no interest in the compromise. That how much they care about people who live close by the site and chances for the amenity improvements for them. Srew people, just save a pile of scrap… It just says it all.

Kat

I understand your view.

But compromise takes its own time. People may initially start from a position of “this is not what I said I wanted” and when time has passed and more thought has been given to the factors that balance the equation, people may alter their position and see the merits.

Time is what is needed. Just so long as SGN don’t beat us all to the punch.

I sincerely hope for you to be right and me being wrong.

That’s an interesting point. Which compromise(s) have been proposed and rejected?

@anon5422159 I have reviewed carefully @kat.standlake.point’s exact words and the comments you make in response.

At no time does Kat use the word “rejected” as per your statement in response and her stated intent is very different from the one ascribe to her words. You posted a rhetorical question which cannot be answered by her simply because it was not what she posted in the first place.

I would invite you to re-think and withdraw your comment.

With respect, Kat can stand up for herself and does so very well. I am sure you mean well but if Kat is upset with Chris’s remark I am pretty sure she will make him aware of it.

As a valued contributor with a strong commitment to the community in which she lives, Kat has done nothing to warrant having her post re-shaped by another poster in the way it was.

It was indeed turned into a rhetorical question which cannot be answered by her simply because it was not what she posted in the first place.

My post is reasonable and I stand by it.

Sorry - with an equal measure of respect .

Well done for proposing something constructive - it’s not easy to achieve.

Technically I doubt an unwrapped gasometer would stay up, it needs to be put back together is a way that provides stability (i.e. a triangular base or a wider closed structure) since there are currently 20 sides you could reduce it down to groups of connected triangular based shapes - building a five or six pointed star which could look quite interesting - whether it could ever do justice to what it replaces is something that you would need to ask others who have a keen interest in industrial architecture.

My personal feeling is that filling the existing gasometer with housing does little to preserve the integrity of the structure, and the cost and limitations of such a development means that it fails in more ways than it succeeds.

Again, from my personal perspective, I have more problem with the increase in retail outlets on the site (particularly retail of perishable items - groceries) rather than the demolition of the gasometers (although falcons, contamination, and heritage value must be considered). The site should be used for housing above ground floor level and the construction of an Aldi store without housing above is a waste of the site.

The planning inspector was clear that additional retail should not be permitted after phase 2, the traffic management report was clear that even with SCOOT the traffic would be worse with another grocer store on the site, and the report also made clear that there would be a loss of footfall and spending in Sydenham High Street as a result of this development.

Had the proposal been for housing, a cinema, ice skating, bowling, skateboard park, wind farm or new secondary school, then there would have been less objections than the replacement of the gasometers with one of the least valuable uses of the site.

A well made point @Michael - it is evident a bit of smart engineering would be required to accomplish a stable construct, whatever might be agreed to be erected if the compromise were to be adopted.

Hello all

Can we get back on track please.

Can we also leave the moderating to the moderators please.

@anon51837532 if you believe a post is inappropriate please flag it and we will consider it.

For the record I have no issue with Chris’ post and am not sure the tone you refer to.

Ideally we’d get back to the excellent first post you made in this thread and let’s not get sidelined.

Have a good afternoon everyone.

Hmm does that mean the inevitable increase in traffic from an Argos outlet is to be allowed? Will this cause less footfall in Sydenham and maybe even reduce activity in Catford where the Argos store may close?
Will the new resident of the Toys r us store be chosen to be less attractive to shoppers to reduce traffic?
High street shops are suffering from a change in consumer habits, unless someone has a plan to stifle the internet.
The idea to repurpose the Gas holders may well cause more visits to admire the resulting ‘art’.

It seems a shame that the planning department with supposedly skilled town planners can only reject proposals yet seem to have no ideas? One must question their value to the community perhaps a spokesman should submit a response on this forum.

There is something quite satisfying about the idea of triangular towers supporting vertical wind turbines - providing 21st century power to the local area. Art, heritage, science, engineering, and utility all in a single design.

A few of these atop gasometer built towers, erected above housing, on top of a cinema/theatre/bowling alley.

An alternative energy site is a brilliant idea Michael.

Just a small point - we did not reach the stage of a Planning Inspector being appointed.- as I recall it the quotes were those contained in the report prepared by Planning Officers of the borough.

And just gently - I am not attempting to re-argue the old case - that is something now in the past - it is what happens next that is important.

Toys R Us already has A1 (non-food) permission. Adding more non-food retail to the site is less of a problem than adding food retail because non-food retail rely on larger purchases and fewer journeys (although the fewer journeys are more likely to be by car).

Small food retailers are best in high streets, large food retailers are best with large car parks in close proximity (a zebra crossing on Girton Road would make a substantial difference to the viability of the empty Safeway/Coop/Budgens/Morrisons site in Sydenham). And restricting parking to 3 hours would also be beneficial for shoppers. But small food retailers benefit from footfall from large food retailers - that’s why The Butchery works directly opposite Sainsbury in Forest Hill. If it were located in Perry Vale it would not have the same footfall.

The best way to protect high streets is to keep footfall coming to them. The loss of key shops on the high street, or competition from non-high street locations, is the best way to lose the viability of a high street.

We did in the phase 2 development, actually I think it was a judicial review rather than a planning inspector (possibly both). But I agree that it is best to move forward.

Prodigious memory going back to Phase 2 - well done @Michael.

I have only some recall of events when this whole thing kicked off in 1993…

Totally agree, do I recall the outcry when Morrisons where going to take the Superdrug plot? Would that have helped?
No takers for the Budgen/Coop site in Sydenham wonder why not viable?

Chris, i meant the proposed compromises for discussion here, in the first post of this thread, and i did not say anything about rejection. You may be looking for a fight here, but i will not give it to you.

The site was rejected for retail, then again rejected to be demolished. The objectors were adamant the holders have historical significance, which they are really not, stopping the site to become smth useful for people and benificial for neighbouring residents.

What they really did is deadlocked the opportunity. The gas company is not getting good offers. Housing projects - not happening with the current state of the site, no chance to return the invested money is obviouse. What the gas company thought, probably, is to make the site more attractive for building opportunities and investors by taking the metal down and leveling. If that is done, then chances and potential for favorable development increases significantly as half of the works are done, tones of metal gone. But no, objectors care about the dead metal, all this stories and researches to prove the historical significance, to me, looked like a hysteria. And the fact that they dont want to even discuss the compromise, to me, only is only a sign that they dont care about people, neghbouring resident who are really in need of amenity and waiting for the opportunity to come, which is the gas holders site demolition and developement really.

I politely asked a question in response to your post. Sorry if you felt I was starting a fight - this was not my intention.

We love you dearly Chris. Lets move on

Latest update from STF.

Poundstretcher will move into Budgens/Co-op site.

BH miffed - she wrote to Co-op asking them to come back - at least they acknowledged the email before they did nothing.

I do wonder how Co-Op selects sites. With one by Crofton Park station and then another at the end of Adelaide Avenue, they seem to concentrate there on a very small patch.

Oh dear, cheap groceries, drinks, homewares, diy and gardening sundries doesnt take a lot to see several small businesses taking a hit.Picking up the overflow from Lidl

Another similar story, but the Council did gve permission to demolish.

No one is taking the history away. From the article:

SGN spokesman said: “It’s no longer sustainable for us to keep these structures in a safe and visually acceptable condition long-term.

“However, as part of our dismantling programme, we are committed to celebrating and capturing the history of our gasholders.

“We understand that to many people these iconic structures act as a visual reminder of an area’s history.

“Therefore, we are working with communities, local history groups and museums to ensure each holder we dismantle has its history captured for future generations to learn from.”

Cycling past the Kennington gasometer steel frames the other day, I was wondering if anyone knows what the plan is for those, and whether it might be worth comparing notes with the Kennington equivalent of the FH / Sydenham societies. I’m sure similar conversations are ongoing there as well.

I do believe the matter of the Gas Holders development has been ongoing since 1983 by my reckoning thats 35 years!
Unfortunately at that pace most of the respondents on this forum will be dead, in a care home or will have been subject to elected euthanasia

One of the Oval Gasholders has been listed as Grade II.

Any idea what they plan to do with it?

I gather that Lambeth Council and Berkeley Homes have a masterplan for the area in which involved the retention of the Grade II listed gasholder and the creation of a public space at its centre.

image910×499 293 KB

The retained gasholder is shown as #2.

That looks fabulous, and I don’t in principle see why that sort of level of ambition couldn’t be put into place at Bell Green. Kennington property values are clearly higher than they are in Sydenham and Forest Hill, but not by an enormous amount. And much must have been learned by now about cleaning up the brownfield site that a redundant gasholder amounts to; in other words, I’m sure there are cost savings on the monies expended to make the King’s Cross site habitable.

I seem to remember the powers that be looked at the cleaning cost of the site v the sales for housing and the figures didnt add up hence no housing. I stand to be corrected though.

2047 Lewisham council have finally decided that the Gas Holders could be utilized as a hub for personal drone transport units with recharging points . The height will enable multiple bays at 3 levels.
However the increased air traffic has raised some concerns with local residents therefore a consultation period and impact study should be initiated within the next 5 years.

Well today I had cause to walk to Bell Green so I took the opportunity to have a gander at said holders.
I admit my first real close up, so i expected to see some tangible evidence of Victorian elegance sculpted profiles ornate cross members if fact any discernible feature that would guide me to a belief that the structure was not built a few months ago! Nothing I saw would be different if it were to be built next week. The cross stress bars the uprights are all simple mechanical designs which if specified today would be replicated. So other than it is old I failed to see what is special?