Did we need another gasworks photo? Spotted in the distance, just now…
The gas holders are not quite at the rainbow’s end - but if I can encourage anyone to come and dig around for the pot of gold…
Beautiful and artful picture even if the perspective we have of the gasholders dominates our skyline in Perry Hill and is very different and far less attractive.
Interesting. Thanks for taking the time to search.
It would appear that the Livesey Hall is probably owned by SGN then, as they recently put in a planning application involving land to the north and south which is featured in the second link.
A Nice photo.
A metaphor perhaps for the changing fortunes of the area around the gasholders… being the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.
There is a campaign to save the giant of a holder in Greenwich, and they have a lot of points about its status in the gas world. That peninsular was essentially a gasworks for a long time before the Millennium Dome popped up.
Can’t remember if anyone posted the link to last year’s RIBA competition for reusing gasholder sites, apologies if this is old ground.
Their brief began with demolition of the steelwork, but most of these entries, including the shortlisted ones and the winner, mirrored the shape of the gasholder bases in some way. Strangely, retail sheds, car parking and fast food restaurants don’t feature highly in the RIBA entries! There are some attractive looking residential proposals though - as well as the Eden project style domes for an all weather park.
Montagu Evans have submitted applications to fully discharge condition 2 and to fully discharge parts a), b) and c) of condition 3 of the permission DC/18/107607 which was issued by the Council on 11 July. The second was submitted on 10 August.
These conditions represent the totality of conditions specified by the Council that had to be satisfied before work commenced.
Given the original application had to be decided within a four week mandated window and that this period of time has lapsed for these submissions, is it now to be assumed that all matters specified by the council are deemed to be satisfactorily discharged by the applicant?
Does the work now commence ?
I would imagine they would wait for the outcome of the public inquiry before the site is converted to wasteland for years and perhaps not bother at all if they don’t have a revenue stream to justify the cost of demolition. Have you asked them?
No James I have not asked them.
In the response to the enquiry I stated that as the applicant had separated the matter of the demolition from the matter of the Planning Application and that LB Lewisham had acknowledged that as a Permitted Development that required a response within a mandated timeframe, which they did, the demolition matter was now settled and should proceed.
I had no expectation that HM Inspector needed to respond as de facto that element was closed.
Montagu Evans submitted application to fully discharge condition 2 has been approved on 17 October.
Interestingly the application to fully discharge parts a), b) and c) of condition 3 of the permission DC/18/107607 is not referred to.
It would appear that it is one down and one more to go.
Just as fascinatingly, the authority has belatedly approved a document it had received as part of the original application.