Bell Green Gas Holders become locally listed

Continuing the discussion from New retail development at Bell Green:

Just announced by the Sydenham Society:

I hope the cost of maintenance will be borne by the Sydenham society and will not be a burden on the public purse!
Perhaps if there is to be a cost to the public a vote should be allowed as to whether Lewisham council tax payers wish to support the listing and associated costs.

My feeling is they will be demolished

I’m not quite sure a listing requires anyone to maintain the structure. Loads of listed buildings are falling down and crumbling.

Well done for stalling another development

Did I miss a step ?

As a resident who lives within their shadow and sees them from my front windows, I would ask who conducted any consultation on this and with whom did they consult.

I recall attempting to access the planning portal when last it became apparent something was moving forward and finding that documents were not accessible.

Can I invite Alan Hall, Jacqu Pachoud or Sue Horbigenko as Bellingham Ward members to get in contact and explain how this consultation was conducted.

Serious deficiency is apparent here.

My own personal experience of Planning departments (3 boroughs) has tainted my opinions. Transparency and openess would be welcomed

Why are you Forest Hill gentlefolk poking your beautifully chiselled noses into a purely Sydenham issue? Leave it to us Sydenhammers, please.

Interesting position Robin.

The majority of residents affected by this decision and subsequent outcomes are based in neither SE23 nor Sydenham.

Get your tanks off our lawn - the majority of us who are impacted by this decision are Bellingham ward residents. Both proximity and boundary wise this development on this site has more bearing on our ward than any other putative interest.

Both Forest Hill and Sydenham residents have nothing like the degree of impact that is relevant compared with our Bellingham Ward residents and their proximity to this proposal.

I would invite both Sydenham Society and Forest Hill Society to comment here on why they feel they are “best fit” to comment on potential impact on areas where they have minimal representation. Neither can claim any significant membership or notional representation in Bellingham ward.

Sydenhammers are falling down on their job. There’s only been a muted reaction to this news on the Sydenham forum, although the development plans were discussed at length a few months ago.

After the debacle with the Sydenham Society and the Windmill Pub, I’d have expected more of a furore.

Unfortunately for you and your affected/afflicted neighbours, despite the relatively recent changes in Planning (localism), objections and opinions of people from all over the place are considered by Local Planning Authorities. I can only sympathise with you all - but I hope it turns out okayish at least.

I’ve never claimed Forest Hill Society was ‘best fit’ for commenting on such an application, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t feedback on a planning application that will have impact (positive or negative) on our members, our community and our local shops.

Some of the most vocal opposition has come from some or our members and non-members on Houston Road and Perry Rise - both streets that may well be impacted from another successful supermarket and the loss of their beautiful view of empty gas cylinders, and both are streets in SE23 that are of interest to Foresr Hill Society and our members.

Any local listing is decided by the council planning department, not by civic societies, although they can nominate sites - as has been done on this occasion by the Sydenham Society and has been done in the past for other buildings by the Forest Hill Society.

Michael - interestingly you remain silent on whether your society did make a recommendation or not or indeed played any part in this nomination.

I agree entirely that Perry Rise has the greatest negative impact by the presence of this retail park - but is that position made worse by this proposal ?

I live on Perry Hill almost exactly half way between Houston Road and the site and I see nothing in this proposal that worsens our situation either. Houston Road residents seemed fixated on the matter of increased HGV traffic on that road - given it has an existing weight restriction preventing such traffic, that potential outcome seems improbable.

So for those who have not seen the site since the gas holders were decommissioned here are some images that reflect the current position:

A pile of post-industrial scrap sitting atop an underground tank of pollution with limited development opportunity and unquantified maintenance liabilities:

Bell Green Gas Holder ISO1117×686 147 KB

OR

An historic iron structure that does little to enhance visual amenity of immediate neighbours.

IMG_03104032×3024 1.57 MB

For clarity I expressed my thoughts in the thread which addressed the Consultation phase.

I thought i was pretty clear on that. Neither i personally, nor the Forest Hill Society as an organisation, nominated this site for local listing. That should not be read as either condemning or supporting the local listing by the council.

I did state above that i believe this application for local listing came from the Sydenham Society. In fact i do not know either way, i think i just fell into the trap of assuming your linkage was accurate, but it might not be. Any resident, councillor, or group can nominate an asset for local listing and the council make the final decision.

The Forest Hill Society raised objections to the Aldi planning application in the appropriate way and we have made that letter public (http://www.foresthillsociety.com/2017/04/bell-green-aldi-planning-application.html). This is not intended to suggest that there is a unanimous view in Forest Hill but we felt the concerns were worth raising as part of the planning process.

There’s a summary of the decision at http://councilmeetings.lewisham.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=139&MId=4635 (including a decenting minority voice from the deputy major).

Very helpful link Michael.

So there we have it. Nothing to worry about - procedures have been observed and decisions made albeit with one dissenting voice at least.

As a (near) neighbour I can confirm that I did not receive any notification from the authority about this local listing issue. We habitually receive planning notices about Bell Green. I would ask if anyone on here did receive such notification.

A rushed decision initiated by a local councillor (see extract of letter to Agent dated 18 October)

"The consideration to include this the Bell Green Gasholders (No.7 & No.8) within the
Council’s local list has arisen at this late stage as a result of the recent local list
nomination from a local councillor during the consultation period of the application
(on 29.09.2017), as well as a large amount of public interest in the architectural and
historic importance of the Bell Green Gasholders (No.7 & No.8) to the Borough of
Lewisham. This forms part of the Councils statutory duty to consider this in line with
our local and national planning policies.
As this nomination was made at such a late stage (on 29.09.2017) and the current
planning application is due to be reported to one of the Council’s planning
committees on 14.11.2017, the Council have had to consider this proposed local
listing under Urgency Procedures, and therefore we have not gone through our
standard consultation process by notifying neighbours, local amenity groups, national
amenity groups and owners. "

The minutes of the Cabinet Meeting on 25 October contain this:

“Annabelle McLaren of the Sydenham Society addressed the Cabinet and said
a petition to save the gasholders had attracted 650 signatures. She outlined
the historical and architectural significance of the gasholders and urged that
they be listed. She was supported by Councillor Chris Best …”.

We should be grateful this decision has no statutory bearing.

One question tickles at the back of my mind - how many of the 650 signatories to the petition are current residents of the Bellingham ward - I think we should be told.

Local listing doesn’t require notification to locals - neither does full national listing as far as I’m aware.

I don’t live in Bellingham ward, but I do live 5 minutes walk from the gasholders, so I signed the petition. I quite like the gasholders but more historic ones have been demolished in the past so I have my doubts that it would be possible to save these ones, and am usually dubious about such petitions - they’re often just another thing to shout at the Planning Dept about and frankly I think they have a hard enough job already. I did object to the planning proposals though. Is that allowed as a non-Bellingham resident?

Everyone should have the right to object and your views and objection should be given appropriate weight by the authority given your proximity (although it probably will not - officers do not take kindly to receiving dissenting views expressed by the public).

In their letter to the Agent dated 18 October the officers referred to the process of notification as being “standard”.

Having re-read it now - I see the officers state that they did not follow the standard process.

It really shouldn’t just be about whether you live in a particular ward as to whether your views are important. Many residents in Bellingham will be totally unaffected by any change of use at Bell Green, while Perry Vale residents couldbe significantly impacted, as could businesses in Sydenham and Forest Hill. All should be allowed to have their say regardless of their opinion or in which council ward they might have been placed, but i completely accept that your personal opinion (and that of your neighbours) is more important than my personal opinion on this matter as the impact will be felt most by those living closest - and that includes many of the 650 people who signed the petition.

I would welcome the additional retail/restaurant facilities proposed and as there is already a retail park and the land is unsuitable for housing seems like a brilliant option.
If Sydenhammers were so precious about the area should have done something about it earlier and turned the whole area into parkland.

Better still how about building on the Sainsbury car park flats could be erected on stilts leaving the majority of car spaces underneath. Low rise say 2-3 storeys would be sensible as the air above 2.5m is unused.

I cannot believe people are squabbling for a pile of metal. Really??? Those gas tanks metal frame thing sticking out are horrible looking lot. Dont you want somthing pleasant looking for the eyes. The retail park next to it is fairly nice, why not to extend it to replace these sticking out metal frames. Surely with a bit of help from local people, good retail construction arrangements can be found.

Personally I don’t dislike the Bell Green towers. In fact I think they’re quite distinctive and interesting.

But if they became a Waitrose I’d be more than happy.

Our poll showed that people are ready for change at Bell Green

I like them. I see them from the hills around FH and I find them reassuring,distinctive and impressive - I think they are “pleasant looking”. Certainly prefer them to yet more retail which I find unattractive and dull beyond compare. I’d rather they stayed but I wouldn’t be distraught if they went but I’d rather see something interesting done with the site than yet more retail development. I may be biased as I really don’t buy much stuff.

Why the turf war about which ward it’s in? The site may be ‘in’ Bellingham Ward but the boundaries of Perry Vale and Sydenham wards are within 500m. Ward boundaries are irrelevant in terms of who the local residents are.

Quite. I live just inside Sydenham ward, only a few metres from the boundary with Bellingham. I am much closer than many Bellingham ward residents, and have every right to comment without being heckled. These administrative ward names blur the historical reality; Bell Green has always been part of Sydenham. Bellingham wasnt a place name at all before the LCC built the Bellingham Estate, on the the site of Bellingham Farm; the name was a convenient choice for the ward.