A planning application has been submitted for the demolition of the locally listed gas holders at Bell Green
http://planning.lewisham.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=_LEWIS_DCAPR_94198
Application by SGN (formerly Scotia Gas Networks)
Looks like the fight continues for those who wanted to conserve the gas holders.
Or maybe not - as the work is scheduled in a matter of days!
Good spot Michael.
It has been declared by Lewisham Planning Department that they intend to review and revise how commentaries on planning applications will be considered from any adjacent geographic Civic Society. This review will embrace considerations such as what weight will be given to such commentaries received from Civic Societies in these circumstances when the submission does not pertain to the Societies’ own wards or area.
It should be understood that significant resolve exists to ensure that the Planning Department is appraised of the absence of consultation with Bellingham Ward residents on previous applications.
In all and any circumstances It is to be hoped that in this occasion any Civic Societies, both FOHSoc and SydSoc, should they elect to comment, will do so in the context of having fully engaged with and consulted Bellingham Ward residents.
At first glance this appears to be solely a demolition proposal, upon which the previous botched and perverse local listing decision has little or no bearing or weight upon SGN’s rights to demolish. Planning Officers previously reported that Lewisham has no funds available to compensate SGN for costs related to the retention and maintenance of redundant structures.
Furthermore, at this stage there is no restoration of traffic and parking benefits embedded in the Kier development.
It remains to be seen that post demolition whether such benefits will be restored in a subsequent development proposal.
It is time that this post industrial age redundant scrap iron structure be demolished and removed.
I had written to request that the agents for the rejected application recommend to their client that the demolition should proceed.
It is viewed with a measure of irony that the proposed demolition will commence on 9 April 2018 and will be completed four days later.
Really sad. I was in Kings X the other day and saw what they did with the Gas Holders there and it reminded me of these. Hope a resolution can be found quick.
The Kings Cross development and the associated imagery has been quoted frequently in previous rounds of debate.
Difficulty is at £750k per housing unit at Kings Cross - affordable housing it does not make.
The scale and type of gas holder is also very different between the two sites.
Planning applications are always decided on merit not purely on the views of one amenity society or another. It is also right that the views of amenity societies should be placed in the context of their membership and proximity to the site. To base this purely on wards is at best a little petty but at worst quite destructive.
For example Southwark’s plans for the Honor Oak Rec are of interest to many members of the Forest Hill Society despite few of our members living in Southwark. It would be wrong for Southwark to dismiss the views of local residents because they live in the wrong borough, let alone the wrong ward.
In my opinion the same is true for Crystal Palace, the development of which could have a dramatic impact on a large area beyond Bromley borough. And the same is true for Bell Green which is acrodd the road from SE23 and the Forest Hill Society has many members who live around Perry Rise and Houston Road.
Of course it is even possible that some councillors would prefer that the Forest Hill Society is limited only to Forest Hill ward. That is not what members or residents understand by ‘Forest Hill’ and it is for members to define their area of interest, not an outside body or an individual.
But amenity societies can be helpful even outside their area. If it were not for somebody from Sydenham Society telling me about this planning application then none of us would have been aware of the application so that we can write in support or objection to this application.
It will be interesting to see how Lewisham deals with a request to demolish something that they locally listed so recently.
Michael
Both SydSoc and FOHsoc had significant over-reach embedded in in their commentaries on the final phase of development at Bell Green.
Neither body could state that their submissions included any consultation with Bellingham ward residents.
Lewisham has declared their position - they intend to review this type of cross-boundary submission, its relevance and how it is to be considered and weighted.
So if FOHSoc wants to submit a commentary - come discuss the matter with those of us who are residents in the ward - and then make your considerations known.
Hear hear, and thank goodness we have strong campaigning groups in this area with a social media reach that extends beyond arbitrarily-drawn boundaries.
The reality is that all civic societies need to think beyond their patch and club together where necessary to conserve what’s good (eg green space) and to fight decisions taken autocratically.
As I’ve said to you before, @anon51837532 on the many occasions you’ve posted about this issue - if Bellingham lacks a civic society of its own, then I’d suggest it’s up to its most outspoken member(s) to get one sorted, rather than launching protests against civil societies in neighbouring areas.
It should be noted that Lewisham Planning Officers had consulted with the developers, Kiers for almost a year and then wrote a report that recommended adoption of the proposal.
The planning sub-committee then, as it is properly entitled to do, rejected the application.
In the absence of merit.
In the absence of logic.
To the detriment of deliverable benefits for the immediate neighbours.
That’s before the wholly rushed-through and perverse application for a local listing led by the cohorts of SydSoc appeared on the horizon only days before the planning application was due for debate.
Naturally - but the only autocracy in evidence here were actions by societies outside the Bellingham ward who did not understand the basic principles of what benefits the development would deliver.
*in your opinion
You have repeated this point to one of redundancy and having zero meaningful impact.
The absence of a Bellingham ward society gives no ground to other societies to deliberate or pontificate without consultation.
And there is no attack on other societies - it is will be seen by reasonable people to be observations of their activities and pronouncements.
In my very humble opinion.
And that of most reasonable people.
I had a number of emails from members and discussions with local residents. Most of these felt that they would have been impacted in some way by the development across ward boundaries but very close to their homes. No doubt most, if not all, were from residents within Perry Vale ward. I was pleased to be able to support some of their concerns in the submission on behalf of the Forest Hill Society.
Submissions on behalf of Forest Hill Society are always made avaiable on our website and links are often posted on this forum.
It is for the council and councillors to make the final decision in line with planning regulations and their own policies. Failure to do so can result in the decision being referred to the planning inspector and, in extreme cases, may result in fines for the council.
If civic societies submit poor quality objections with little planning merit, then the council will reject them. I hope that this is a rare occurrence by the Forest Hill Society as we try our best to focus on real planning considerations when writing an objection, and tend to limit ourselves to planning applications which will have a material impact on our members or the wider community in Forest Hill.
As has been repetitiously pointed out to our neighbouring civic societies, no evidence of any consultation with Bellingham ward residents is presented in any form or at any forum.
Perry Vale is not Bellingham.
I repeat my offer - come consult with Bellingham ward members who are most directly impacted by the absence of the deliverable benefits of improved parking, set-down and traffic flow measures.
Only then will you have an authentic and presentable case that embraces all residents’ needs - and will stand up to scrutiny.
Chris - thank you.
But I must encourage you not to think you understand how I feel - it is of no consequence.
Some frustration may exist about the decision made last time round - but that issue is behind us.
What must happen now is to follow an effective course of action that prevents a recurrence of the same flawed decisions and pontifications being made.
The matter of the rejection has been raised with all three ward members at the last Bellingham Assembly.
In moving forward, there is a lot to do.
I have a more detailed ward map where the boundaries are more visible - I will load it in the morning.
I would be happy to discuss the latest application with you but I think it would be wrong to consult with Bellingham residents and to claim that the Forest Hill Society represents them. If there are a number of residents in Perry Vale who reasonably feel that this would be detrimental to their lives, I think it is incumbent upon the local amenity society to represent their views rather than people in other areas. But first and foremost we try to object or support planning applications based on policies that exist at local, regional or national level. Occasionally this perspective may put us at odds with communities outside Forest Hill (e.g. people in Southwark who want to be buried in the Honor Oak Rec). It is unfortunate that some planning applications will benefit some at the expense of others, but fortunately we have a planning system that places a quasi-judicial role on local councillors from across the borough, not on amenity societies. And the planning inspector can overrule any refusal made by local councillors (interestingly there is no process for the planning inspector to overrule permission that has been granted - that would need to be done by the Secretary of State or by a judge).
Prior to the last Bell Green objection (2017) I attended two meetings where there were residents from Bellingham ward as well as other wards - one organised by the developer (pre-planning) and one organised by the Sydenham Society. Both seemed well attended and at both meetings I listened to the views of others. At neither meeting did there seem to be much desire for food retail to be built on the site.
I am always interested to hear different views about proposals, I don’t always agree with everybody and I don’t expect others to agree with me all the time. Gaining the widest perspective on a matter is helpful, which is why I post here rather than keeping the information to myself, when I know there are a variety of views - including your own. Had I not posted here you would not have known that you had an opportunity to express your views. I hope that residents of Bellingham, Perry Vale, and other areas take the opportunity to express their views to the council (planning@lewisham.gov.uk) on the planning application, and I’m always happy to hear those views as well - you are welcome to contact me directly by email (michael@fhsoc.com) if you would like to take the discussion off-line.
When Bell Green was wasteland, I thought great - a perfect place for affordable homes or a park. But no. The council had to give us a drive-through MacDonalds and ghastly factory stores oh, and more traffic. All of which the community could do without. The gas works at least give the place character, and should remain. Indeed the structure would perfect roosting spot for Forest Hill’s green parrots.
It would be good to have more green space I agree.
On the other hand, the big Sainsbury, PC World and B&Q have been very very useful to me - especially with the ease of parking.
I’m also pleased McD’s exists - outside the town centre. Had a lovely Big Mac there last week 
Some people have a strange view on ‘Character’ I wonder how they would react if those supporters were asked to pay extra council tax or fundraise to maintain the gas holders? …is that a rush to the exit!
Can see a great job creation opportunity here.
One team to train the birds to roost there.
A second team to clean off the guano build-up.
I don’t really see what it strange about it. We all have differing opinions on these sort of thing do we not? Personally I really like industrial landscapes, power stations and the like and I find the gas holders beautiful and I would prefer they stay or be incorporated into a local plan but I think we have had this discussion previously.
Slightly insulting to make the suggestion that if asked to fundraise everyone who supports them staying would run for the hills. Many people on here have raised money for diverse causes - murals, bake-houses, library and Leaf and Groove. Maybe the gas holders wouldn’t be quite as vibrant a cause - who knows. However I find the lack of imagination regarding the whole site to be a little depressing especially this idea that if you have to dip into your own pockets for anything you support but I fear that is another debate for another day.
I am surprised you find my view insulting, i would suggest in the case of the gas holders I am 100% accurate.It would be interesting to put it to the test.qq
I have in the past held events for the village church, chaired a fundraiser for the school swimming pool and changing facilities, computers including laptops for disabled students, meals for the elderly.
However, given a choice of an Aldi, restaurant or housing or two rusting structures then I would volunteer to man the bulldozers.
What @Wynell said.
And what @Foresthillnick said.
How do you link the two statements with the phrase “Slightly insulting…”.
No evidence of insult and @Wynell asks a very valid question.
Requires some reconsideration methinks.
In terms of who got their dibs in first - you may only be at position three in the queue.
Not at all.
What we have here is a difference of opinion. It is quite a common occurrence and nothing to get excited about.
Some people like parks and are happy that they are paid for out of communal funds. Some people like old buildings. I like gas holders.
And yes I find it slightly (note only slightly) insulting that us “strange” types are somehow lacking in either resources or the will to raise them but it isn’t going to ruin my day.
I also have the sense to realise that not everyone shares my opinion and that it is likely to be prohibitively expensive to save them. So while I am not in a rush to demolish landmarks of our industrial heritage like some I will be sad to see them go.
Seeing the gas holders from the hills of Forest Hill and Honor Oak fills me with joy and I am sorry that other people don’t share that but each to their own. If bulldozing things is your bag then great, I am sure you will be of to raise the funds to rent one. 
For clarity.
I saw nothing insulting (even slightly) and I do not consider you strange - even slightly.
Not in the remotest.
This issue was my opening post on this forum. My view and that of my BH were fairly neutral about the old gasometers. It changed upon realising that there was a body of people intent upon ramming the retention of them down our throats and halting the delivery of improved traffic flows and parking easement.
But then I would not dare to presume you partook in any such action.
I believe firmly that people must have their right to express their view.
Out of interest, how is it that further development (either houses or shops) will improve traffic flows?
As for “parking easement,” do you find parking difficult in Bell Green as it stands?
By the way, neither @Foresthillnick nor anyone else has been “ramming” anything down anyone’s throats about Bell Green so let’s calm the emotive language and stick to the facts of the matter.
I don’t think that is fair. The ‘improved traffic flows’ were based on limiting the negative impacts of higher numbers of vehicle movements. The overall traffic situation would have got worse had permission been given for another out-of-town A1 retail unit next to the existing store. The traffic scheme would only have made it less worse than it would otherwise had been, but the assessment by the developer was that traffic and congestion would still be worse than today.
There are other uses of the site that would not result in such high levels of traffic and congestion but I would support immediate action to improve traffic flow in the Bell Green area today - without waiting for more development. The worst part is the narrow bridge on Southend Lane which was always meant to be widened but was too expensive to be supported by each separate phase of Bell Green development (rather than considering the problem as a whole).
In short - the Kier development had a Lewisham endorsed SCOOT proposal that was advertised to improve traffic flow through the area.
Not sure where the required funding will come from now that the developer has had their proposal rejected.
Lewisham council also secured circa £1.85m for Southend Lane Bridge widening works as s106 monies in the original agreements for the Savacentre development.
Recent enquiries as to when and how this funding is to be applied to that specific works await an answer.
Do you understand how SCOOT works - you make no reference to it ?
For my part I believed it was an efficacious proposal as it had Lewisham’s endorsement - but I do not have any technical details.
I see no accusation of this activity on @Foresthillnick’s part and indeed stated that there was none.
Livesey Hall has a substantial portion of funerary business on a regular basis during its daytime business. On those occasions several hundreds of patrons can and do attend the Hall.
The streets and side streets that run back up Perry Hill from the Perry Hill/ Perry Rise traffic lights are flooded with the parked cars. This reduces available parking for residents to virtually zero and makes picking up and setting down very difficult during those periods because of this influx of patron’s cars.
Regardless of opinions of the gas holders, it would appear they are in poor / dangerous condition, and there is no funding from anywhere to repair or maintain them.
I have spent my whole life seeing them, as a child with fascination and excitement as to if they were up or down. Later in life when the old depot and cottages were demolished to make way for Sava, it was great to see them remain.
Of course, they were functioning then.
Now they are aging relics in the middle of a town, and at the centre of the dilemma of what happens next.
Removal of them is the best thing for them in my opinion, so then at least the debate and discussion about what happens next with the land, can move on and be productive.
I totally get the sentiment involved here, but sometimes you just got to let things go. Especially when there is no money to save and maintain them.
Just about, although I’m not an expert in traffic management, I can only go by what was in the report:
6.98 A SCOOT system would not eliminate congestion attributed to the proposed use, but it would serve to have benefits toward the busy junctions around the site, whilst reducing the prospect of ‘rat-runs’ to residential streets. The SCOOT system would be installed to link the signals on the Bell Green gyratory, and would optimise the traffic signals by constantly adjusting the signal timings to minimise the modelled queuing/ delays.
6.95 Traffic modelling undertaken as part of the submitted Transport Assessment indicates that the ‘2016 Observed + Development’ Saturday peak hour shows an increase in queueing on Perry Hill of 53 vehicles compared with 28 in the ‘2016 Observed’ case, the increase in queueing is significantly lessened with the proposed mitigation in place.
So the SCOOT system would not eliminate congestion attributed to the proposed use (Aldi). In other words there would be more traffic but the SCOOT system would mitigate some of the issues. Rather than the existing 28 car queue, the queue would be more than 28 but significantly less than 53.
I believe it is wrong to categorise this as ‘improved traffic flows’.
If development is allowed perhaps some allocated parking for Livesey hall could be included?
I have yet to find the car park full even Ssinsburys is busy at times but never without spaces
Sorry - I should have been clearer.
The Kier proposal had made provision for dedicated parking for Hall patrons. Now lost for meantime.
Not enough - but the working assumption is that once patrons get to know it exists and can also enter from the rear of the Hall - they will use the more conveniently accessible parking slots.
It has been pointed out to me that this is not actually a planning application. It is “Prior notification of the demolition of the two existing gasholders and ancillary buildings at Bell Green”
There is no requirement for any decision to be made and it is extremely unlikely that anything will save the gas holders - they are history!
Micheal
I must congratulate you in your transparency and promptness in making this statement contrary to your OP.
However in your defence, your “mea culpa” may be premature. I for one did not see the difference .in the form of application.
There were significant departures from standard procedures that resulted in this local listing being granted. Those actors who led in the matter will not see this as the end.
I fully recognise that FOHSoc played no part in this.
No-one has published a detailed structural engineers report.
SGN will have had a mandated obligation to monitor the structure.
Their reports may have had a direct bearing on their decision to commence demolition so soon. Write and ask for a copy.
You are so right.
Oh trust me it will.
This company as a public infrastructure organisation that must ensure that it conforms with its mandated obligations.
It is required to conduct detailed inspections in detail that might surprise you.
They may not be obliged to make public absolutely every detail - but they may have to explain any rationale for withholding data.
For the avoidance of doubt - this repeats my position.
If you elect not to ask - how are the maintenance position and costs to be calculated at say 5, 10, 20 years or more.
Who will foot the bill ? An increase in our poll tax ?
As politely as I can - this has been debated when the council approved the “local listing”.
Council officers argued in their report that the council had no funds to prevent the demolition on a permitted development basis, nor did they want to set a precedent for other bodies to approach the council for compensation in similar circumstances where retention of redundant structures were being enforced by the council…
The respected committee rejected the argument as they were fully permitted to do and approved the local listing. As officers had stated the local listing has no material impact.
This outcome is the result. Unless Lewisham can belatedly make a financial offer to SGN that makes a commercial case for their retention - SGN will have to comply with their first business imperative - protect the primacy of the value of their assets for their share-holders.
From afar a nice lick paint (aging now) can make things look dandy. The cylinder sits in a bath of water, they are made from iron, and are getting on in age. Having sat around unused for some time now, I can say with some level of confidence, that they will be aging at an accelerated rate now.
Large, iron, unmaintained, old structures. I guess that is the bit I find dangerous.
Just featured in the News Shopper:
Seems the Gas holders have plenty of support from local groups including the Victorian Society, Sydenham Society, Forest Hill Society, and the Greater London Industrial Archaeology Society.
Plenty of pockets to ensure the maintenance and repairs and security of the site can be funded without recourse to any council/public funding. As previously stated I have no problem with them remaining as long as not a penny of my money is used to retain them.
Pretty much how I feel too.
That said, for all their “beauty” from the road, once you get into the approach for B&Q etc, and enter the car park, the view becomes quite hideous.
I assume from the plans that they wish to flatten the place, and wonder if that includes taking away the small depot they have there.
If nothing else, removing it all would be nice, surely.
It is not about preserving the gasholders for posterity. It is about finding a use for them post gas storage. Gasholders do hold a strange tug on many people for various reasons. They are huge metal structures that changed shape and context on a daily if not hourly basis for many years.
Not many buildings do that.
Gasholders are now mostly decommissioned, silent sleeping beasts. People are forgetting why they were even fond of them in the first place. They no longer rise and fall.
It would be ridiculous to expect the actual holder to be retained. (The bell that goes up and down) It’s purpose was solely to contain gas. The frames however could be re-purposed and effort put in to helping to recreate what it’s original function was but in a newer way.
I am not from the area but do find myself in the area regularly. Cheap housing is often suggested for these projects. Not sure why. Build expensive flats in them or offices, even car parks. Make them a focal point. Somewhere unique. That is why the King’s Cross gasholders are successful.
Or…
Become a face less, boring commuter car park for London’s City.
Once they’ve gone, their gone. Town planners never build anything interesting or good, because they are restricted by budgets.
This is an opportunity. Not just for the Bell Green holders, but Eastbourne, Beckton, North Greenwich and other areas blessed with this heritage.
Don’t demolish the gasholders!!!
Many old buildings and structures are saved for posterity in order to remind us and future generations of our social, political and economic history. For that reason I think there is a good reason to same our gas holders. Or at least a few of them. No reason to save them all.
I think the Victorian Society has hosted campaigns to save gas holders in the past so if there is a lead to retain the Bell Green ones then a call to them might be helpful. Though I think their focus has been on those considered of significant architectural interest and often of a large size. I’m not convinced that the Bell Green gas holders are architecturally significant other than as a local landmark.
I’m not emotionally or geographically invested in these gas holder so really don’t mind whether they stay or go.
I think the question is not whether they go or stay but who maintains them and at whose cost? The land they sit on is classed as contaminated and is unsuitable for housing unless significant remedial works are done.
Providing a new catering venue, retail store and additional parking will provide employment, increase council revenues and ease adjacent parking woes.
Set against something that most people under 50 wouldn’t recognise. I have previously suggested that if significant financial support can be obtained without recourse to tax payers then by all means let them stay, of course my feeling is once real money is demanded the enthusiasm will wane.
I think they are architecturally significant - they might not have been a few years ago, but I seem to recall reading somewhere that there were three other sets, in better condition, or maybe slightly older, and they’ve all gone, so now Bell Green is the only survivor, or something. I’ll have a look round for the link.
can’t find the link at the moment, maybe it’s in a thread on here, or SE26.life, or on Sydenham Town Forum…
here’s a pic of when they had gas in them
http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/49904
Perhaps some of the supporters of the gas holders could start a crowd-funding post. That way they can preserve them by putting up the maintenance funds. On the basis if its unsuccessful the contributors get their money I will throw in a pound!
Extract from same meeting recounting English Heritage/Historic England’s position on the matter.
Historic England were asked to statutorily list the building but in April 2017
considered that given the large numbers of gasholders and the increasing
standardisation in design, the threshold for special interest on a national level
is necessarily high, with only 16 designated examples in the country. It was
considered that the Bell Green examples were not more exemplar than other
listed examples found in London and the rest of the country.
In fairness, the minutes do also note:
On a local level however, the structures are considered to be of significant
historic, social and architectural value.
Has anyone ever approached the Victorian Society on the matter?
I understand there are plans to site a restaurant, coffee shop and supermarket on the site. This would require cleansing of the land and the cost justified by the development.
The alternative is to leave the gas holders, costly maintenance and one assumes the contamination. Perhaps parts of the holders could be incorporated into some fencing or an art project that would repurpose parts of the structure.
I still think they should build a trampoline park 
Great idea, but don’t people have enough places to park their trampolines?
Out if interest, who should pay for the gas holders to be retained and maintained?
0 voters
One huge trampoline suspended in the middle of each holder lol, weeeeeeee
I agree with one of the previous posts - the important issue here is to buy some more time to properly consider what happens to these structures.
At the risk of again repeating a previous post, once they are gone, they are gone.
In practical terms, how can a stay of execution be achieved?
For those who are of a view that the gas holders should stay or that the decision to demolish should be given greater time for consideration, I believe that you can make your views known by emailing planning@lewisham.gov.uk (ref DC/18/106293) or by writing to The Planning Dept, Lewisham Town Hall, London SE6 4RU.
The deadline for responses is Tuesday April 10 (which to my mind seems a bit late given the application states a commencement date for the works as 09/04/18).
I shudder at the thought of the cost of such an action. I also doubt very much that there is the financial appetite to do such a thing in Bell Green.
The removal of the holders and what happens with the land after are two very different things and need keeping separate.
I have no doubt SGN would love to dispose of the land for a pretty penny, but I get the impression that the removal of the holders is just cost saving in the long run, and dismantling retired equipment.
I’m not sure how pressure from anyone can force them to pay to leave them there and maintain them.
By all accounts the decontamination of the land would render development of reasonably priced houses for the area undoable.
As for the Dylon site, astonishing change of scenery there, and I have to say one of the first times I have thought borderline over developed.
The site of the gas holders is considered usable for retail or commercial
Thats a great story and the hall will remain as testimony to his benevolent actions.
I recaĺl that the rejected plans did include parking for the hall which would take pressure off surrounding residential roads. As for traffic flows the Bell Green site is what it is, Toys r us is going what will replace it something popular increasing visitors?
As for damaging the High Street that ship has sailed, online sales are growing exponentially, the Budgen site in Sydenham is an example as with many retail to housing projects.
I will leave it there no point in discussing further my only hope is that any ongoing costs are not borne by council tax payers.
SGN and NG will likely say that the holders are expensive to maintain. Containing gas they are. You would expect that live, flammable and potentially explosive vessels to be maintained to the highest standards. (Except they no longer contain gas, so the maintenance is the basic stop it from falling down type, and they won’t) Conversely maintaining a building that does not do anything is a waste.
What they don’t tell you is that water sealed gasholders are very simplistic. They contained gas for many, many years…safely. In the last 40 years most have been operating on unmanned and relatively unsecured sites. I have no doubt they got checked. The gas company knows their safe, they just don’t want them anymore. Stopping intruders climbing over them is probably the biggest cost. There are plenty of examples dotted around that have been decommissioned for years and no attempt has been made to demolish them. That was before the recent culling.
The point is, and I accept that leaving them as they are is expensive. Re-purposing them would make them useful and they would not be a drain on the rate payers.
Gasholders are becoming rare and those that have column guides are few and far between. The London area has a lot of the remaining examples. But they are going, fast. When the gas companies say they have 200+ to get rid of, they are also referring to the spiral/corkscrew type of which there are many. That type would be difficult to re-purposed because it is really just the bit that contains the gas. Not much to work with.
Bell Green is fortunate to have two examples that with a bit of creative effort could become the centre piece of an interesting project. Most people for better or worse agree that they are landmarks, and they are unique in style and shape.
I do not think an architect would get anywhere near the shapes of the gasholders if they were asked to plan a big project. You’ll get generic blocks of various shapes and sizes, of the same boring rubbish.
The same would have happened at King’s Cross had people not fought to save their gas holders. Now you have what most would then have said, was an eyesore. Is now the jewel in the crown at the King’s Cross project.
I don’t believe that creating a new use for the guide frames is going to cost more than constructing a new building, there must be engineers out there that are more than capable of constructing a building within a near indestructible structure. It just means developers don’t have a totally clean sheet to work with. A bit more difficult to sell to sponsors and investors maybe.
Building a supermarket and carpark could easily be achieved within the guide frames.
These gasholders are bigger than they look, if you look at the frames and divide them from top to ground level into 3 equal sections/lifts. That is the area of a building within the frame. Both holders are equipped with (and not used for a long time) a flying lift. So you could if you want add a extra section above the frames. Also as pointed out earlier, all the sections sit in a bath of water which is equivalent to 1 section below the ground level. So you have two potentially huge buildings.
As for contamination, I’m not a expert. However on a lot of sites where holders exist. They were built on fresh land. The bigger ones were added because of rapid expansion. Not sure about the Bell Green holders. I think the contamination issues arose when a holder was built on old production land like at Hove. But many were not. Some were built at the same time as the production plant, and just outlived the plant. If there is contamination, it will be in the form of sludge that is removed by a specialist at the same time as removing the Bell (the bit that holds the gas) I will of course stand corrected. I realise that the King’s Cross holders were moved. Which was one of the biggest costs and risks on that project. I don’t think it would be necessary at Bell Green and the frames are totally different to the Kings Cross type.
As I read this forum and other forums, there seems to be a idea that the gasholders are to be preserved, as gasholders. Alas their time as gasholders is up. I cannot see a reason why anything of that size would be needed now to store gas and technology has moved on. Maybe a steelworks but who would know they were there.
I’m not sure it matters whether English Heritage or the experts on what is important according to set criteria, do or do not endorse it. What matters is…are we as the critical eyes, wanting to reuse these structures for ourselves and future generations to appreciate. I think the merit is there as they are unique, will never get built again because they were built for a purpose and they evoke so much interest.
The gas industry is infuriating in it’s lethargic attitude towards conservation of its heritage. Near enough all the remnants of it’s manufacturing past have gone. The cathedral’s of the industry which I suppose are the gasholders are being flattened as quickly as it can possibly do it. Not one is operating at all now.
We all use gas in one way or another. Ok it is now natural gas. But we might not have it piped to our homes had it not been for manufacturing gas. It is probably one of the most successful industries ever and there is nothing really to see. It’s all either underground or out at sea in this country.
This is a unique opportunity for the area to do something different. Not only conserving some heritage, but to create something iconic.
Does anyone know what the current position is with the application to demolish? The proposed start date was today.
I think that the application is for permission only to demolish the holders and associated equipment.
Since one application was thrown out last year because, there was a desire to retain the holders. I guess if they can flatten the site to just weeds and rubbish they can build what they like and nobody will object to it.
If you look at the application portal on the Lewisham Council planning department you can see what is going on.
There is some quite interesting documents on there.
To me it is giving the minimum time for people to object to demolition. Not actually the period needed to execute the task.
Nobody has objected?
I believe the application last year was for the re-development of the wider site (which included the demolition of the gas holders) and was refused on various grounds.
This current application, as I understand it, is merely a permission to demolish redundant structures under Permitted Development.
The application as listed on the website gives a commencement date as today for the works.
Given the works would normally be permitted under Permitted Development, I am not sure what actual “permission” the owner needs to undertake the works here. I’m also unclear on what effect the local listing has.
I would imagine that they are permitted to take down their own property on their own land, unless otherwise instructed, which seems rather unlikely. Even with the passion and emotion which has been expressed.
In a rather crude way, I am almost curious to see them taken down.
That said, it would be nice if the structures could be repurposed somehow, once dismantled.
Maybe some of it kept and used on whatever replaced them, as a nod to the past.
Without trying to be argumentative about it, as fascinating as the story of George Livesey is, I am not sure it is really sufficient to use as a reason to retain and maintain such large structures, at an undetermined cost, and as of yet undecided whos expense.
There are many occasions where greatness has succumbed to progress. Sad as it is, space is at a premium, facilities, homes, and other such necessities are stretched.
I am sure if full funding could be found to purchase the land and holders from SGN, and then maintain the holders, there would be far less concern about their retention.
Thanks for the interesting insight @anon93536262 - it adds a lot to the conversation.
It may be that SGN and even the council are conspiring to find ways to bin the gasholders at any cost, and resort to deception and peoples lack of understanding of the planning laws. That is not designed to offend anyone, but I have no idea really, how it works.
I find it frustrating that SGN and other companies cannot find ways to reuse old redundant assets. It seems that…and this is a British disease…anything that has become surplus to requirements, is immediately scrapped and shoved into the annals of history. Railways, canals, gas holders and many buildings like schools, hospital’s and power stations.
Granted we may never have a need to construct these two gasholders in their current positions ever again. But once they have been lost, that is it.
They could be repurposed and become a fantastic asset to the wider community.
There has been desire to repurpose say Battersea power station, why is it so significant. It looks like an upturned table and has needed a fortune rebuilding it chimneys. It is being kept because it holds a passion in people. It has an identity.
There have been more gasholders built than power stations. I will say though that Battersea is one of the few remaining that have any sort of style. There is perhaps a case for Dungeness B on the Kent Coast. Where some effort has been put into to design aesthetic not just function.
I did once learn that if a company like British Gas (as it then was), wants to do anything to an existing asset either to improve function or maintenance it can and they do not have to get permission. Unless the alteration will have an effect on other persons effected by the alteration, usually if it got bigger.
My question was at the time.
If the gas company wanted to rebuild a currently demolished gasholder or other building within the site could they?
Answer: Providing the building was reconstructed in the same place, using the same footprint, was the same height and was for the same purpose - they could without getting permission. This was because the site and building was being used for it’s already authorised purpose. Grandfather rights I guess.
However if the site had been cleared, and for instance I brought the site and wanted to build gasholder(s) to exactly the same design, function and in the footprints as the old ones. I would need to get the planning permission again - it would be unlikely to happen.
So…
There is a point to my focus on the flying lifts on the existing gasholders. If SGN wanted to repurpose the gasholders to say flats, they could go up to a level higher than the existing frames without much fear of revulsion from the planning authorities and objectors, because the permission to go that high already exists.
Gasholders by the very design and function are when fully inflated - solid (to look at). So putting another building that would go to that height would not make much difference. If there was any objection the gas company could make the part above the guide frames out of glass and refit the guide rollers to make it look like the crown on the 1st lift of the holder… and I don’t think anyone could complain.
What happens inside the frame is restricted to the capacity of the frame and again a fully inflated gasholder is solid.
The only difference is purpose: two GIANT flammable GAS holders or Homes and shops with parking made to look like existing buildings.
So why if they could do this, does the company want so build a supermarket on ground level only. It surely de-values the site tremendously.
You could still have Aldi on the ground level section, carparks underneath and 3 or more gasholder levels of liveable flats above. And you have conserved some history in the process. Win-win I think.
If SGN became a developer it could make millions?
The question once again is, at who’s expense?
Repurposed for what, another question which keeps arising.
I think it would be the billions of pounds poured into the regeneration of the whole area. Including the relocation of the American Embassy right in the heart of it all.
And as you rightly point out, the stacks cost a fortune to rebuild, but then that money is recoverable from the many millions each apartment is selling for.
To build within the frame of the holders would cost a fortune I would expect. The logistics alone of moving the materials up and through the frame work.
What would they then sell for?
If the frame actually suitable and in good enough condition to have a structure placed inside it?
I think someone said up-thread that with the development at Kings Cross the holders were removed from site and then reinstalled around the finished apartment building.
There’s been plenty of discussion about this in our various threads. No need for you to probe each person that suggests redevelopment. Let’s keep this topic constructive and hear everyone’s opinion please.
Yes there has been plenty of discussion on it, however I am curious to know what ideas each person has. Its on topic and relevant. There is no point in having a topic where we romantically dream about the possibilities. I’m not being mean about it, just trying to keep it realistic.
If there is an idea there which has not been discussed yet, I bow to its possibilities.
Indeed, but given the rather different housing markets of the two areas, I would suspect that the cost would be seriously prohibitive.
If people want to dream about the possibilities they are more than welcome to do so on this forum.
On the other hand, if people feel the need to run their ideas past you I’m sure they will do so. There’s no need for you to arbitrate the topic and repeat your line of questioning. It didn’t come across as friendly on the Dominos topics, and I’m not sure it does here either.
Lol wow, well I will remind you of that next time you do similar, I’m sure it won’t be long.
I will be quiet now.
A: At who’s expense.
The owner and developer and then who ever buys in. In the sense of : The owner of the land who wants a house built and then the person who buys the house. That kind of thing.
(Got to get away from its gasholder and must go thing)
B: They could be repurposed for what?
I have already suggested why and how in my opinion. It seems that the land is only to be re-repurposed for a supermarket and car park based on SGN and previous developers suggestions.
C: Battersea Power Station
Ok, I get your point, but don’t underestimate the area that you live. I think that Lewisham and the surrounding area has a lot to offer, it just happens not to be in the heart of London. But not that far.
It was not so long ago that Battersea was not such a desirable part of London as it is now.
There a plenty of rail stations and transport opportunity’s in this area. These are the things that drive the economy that drives development.
There are plenty of people that want something different, buying a apartment in a redundant gasholder frame would be a ridiculous place to want to live - wouldn’t it? But people do. It would be down to the developer to be creative and strike appeal to potential clients. I would buy one.
Building the apartments would not be any more difficult than building any other medium high rise building I’d have thought. I’d need to ask a builder. Probably just use a tower crane and drop things down on top.
I will point out that even I think the actual gasholder or bell is totally redundant and should be removed. That is not a difficult task. Conserve anything on it that could be reused, yes like the guide rollers. It is the frame I advocate keeping.
Fair play, and thanks for the replies. Apologies if I caused any offence with my questions.
I agree Lewisham is not a bad place to live at all, been here all my life.
My point with Battersea was that apartments are selling at upwards of 6 mill, about 10 times the price of what I would expect the most expensive unit to sell for in Bell Green
I love the idea of such a unique looking building, and would love to see it. Here’s to hoping I have things totally wrong.
The removal of the actual bell would indeed make the site more accessible, I just wonder what lurks beneath.
One way or another, whatever happens, I sincerely hope a good nod to the sites heritage remains or is put in place.
Whilst I appreciate the sentiments the gas holders need a huge amount of work, coupled with the build costs makes the project unworkable. Note the Kings Cross apartments sell for more than £600k for a 1 bed, Sydenham could not demand that pricing.
Whilst there is a lot of emotion and blue sky thinking I still await a practical sustainable solution and this has not been forthcoming.
James
I have copies of the original agreements and I can see collective line allocations for sums in excess of £2.08m.
I cannot see the modification you refer to however - could you please provide a pointer if this appeared in a later amendment. It has not been an easy to follow matter.
The authority was still reporting the money as being unexpended circa 2014 in a round-up exercise of s106 monies (spent and un-spent ) across the borough.
This point was raised at a recent ward meeting and a ward councillor has promised feedback.
Sydenham Society have spotted peregrine falcons on the gas holders. Bad news for starlings in the car park, good news for gas holders - possibly.
I hope this is true - would love to see some Peregrine Falcons!
Link to article on 2015 Lewisham Nest Peregrine Falcons - could it be their offspring?
I spotted the Forest Hill walrus on the gas holders bad news for the falcons
Just need some pipistrel bats and a few crested newts in the water and the holders will be preserved? Or maybe chain a few protesters (or moped riders) to the iron work.
Thank you James.
London’s peregrine falcons eat pigeons, starlings, black-headed gulls and most other migrating birds, which can often be found following the river Thames.
They’ll bully and eat bigger birds too, including buzzards and crows.
They are also partial picnicking on London’s more recent avian arrival: parakeets.
Bit of a paradox here - parakeets or phantom falcons.
Plus there are exceptions if the resultant destroying of a nest occurs whilst carrying out a lawful action (such as a permitted demolition).
Or what nest? None here!
There is nothing like healthy debate to get the blood pumping. No offence taken.
Phew, thanks for seeing it in the light in which it was intended.
Indeed it is good to thrash things out a bit to understand each others perspectives on such an emotive matter.
I am staying away from this thread but amazed how much power some participants have attempting to save the pile of scrap metal. Lewisham Council is planning to destroy our local green space with old trees and protective species living on it, which also local residents and neighbours use. If the Council makes a decision to keep the gas holder because of the birds or thier historic significance, somebody from the Council will be taken to court personally if they go ahead with the buildings on our estate.( It is not a joke, our neighbours already have a lawyer in mind for this purposes.) I honestly can not believe my eyes what I am reading in this thread.
No, you’re not.
One of the suggestions (perhaps not wholly serious) made at the SydSoc AGM yesterday evening was that on the day of the proposed demolition we should form a human chain round the gasholders to stop the bulldozers or whatever moving in.
Kat, this thread demonstrates the ridiculous state of Lewishsms planning policy. They shun possible investment and employment opportunities, msintain sn old school site that is slowly deteriorating and abuse their powers where they feel they can bully or bribe.
If the effort to maintain wildlife, reduce traffic nuisance and maintain a decent environment were applied to the Bampton estate there would be no building plans. Perhaps the gas holders could be moved onto the green space to preserve both them and the environment as a wildlife haven?
at the other end of Bellingham Ward is Beckenham Place Park - there’s issues there with trees being removed, and wildlife etc. I hope you’re all as up in arms about that too!
Much talk about it previously here Jon.
Like many other things, there are reasonable factors to consider. That said, reasonable is open to interpretation, as it is on this thread also.
I have not visited the park this year, but will be interested to see how it has changed. What has been felled, and to what effect.
I have seen a number of tweets about it over the winter, and see there is a lot of unhappiness about it. I guess the end result is where these decisions can finally be judged on their merits.
Much the same here with the gas holders.
Fantastic news for the campaigners. Will be interesting to see the next move from all parties.
Or maybe a case of over confidence? Tis strange indeed, but a delay, if nothing else, is just what campaigners need to unite, and make a proposal, hopefully with some backing.
This looks to be good news. (from the gasholders point of view)
I do think there needs to be a proposed basic plan for reuse/repurpose from supporters of the gasholders, I realise this has been raised before. But now the axe has been held off. (for the time being) This is the time to be creative and suggest something that will that will win the hearts and minds of the wider community. This may also give SGN and the council something to work with if a decision is to be made to keep them.
I feel that generally, people think that gasholders are dirty and unusable, therefore coming automatically to the decision that they should go to clean the area up. If a alternative is presented, then more support would be forthcoming.
Time to start working on a suggestion.
I wont hold my breath! Sounds like blue sky thinking, however, I think if they dont get demolished this post will repeat itself for as many years as it takes for them to rust away.
The site on which the gas holders are located is redundant. They appear to me to be partially accessible. It is not clear whether there is on-site supervision or a security presence.
The Livesey Hall however has a full-time business in operation and whilst there may be issues around rubbish on pavement and roadways after large scale events held in the hall, until now no-one has raised any issues over whether the Hall is in good hands.
Do you have any insight as to who actually owns the Livesey Hall and is it possible SGN do not own it ?
You are right.
And I don’t either
And this question posed by you is very pertinent too.
I have done a Land Registry map search There are two plots of land. presumably different owners.
MapSearch-20180420-130249.pdf (864.8 KB)
MapSearch-20180420-130240.pdf (911.7 KB)
Very interesting Jon.
Even more interesting that the site behind Livesey Hall has the title “ELECTRICITY SUBSTATION ON THE EAST OF PERRY HILL, LONDON”.
So that settles it, HM Land Registry cannot possibly be wrong - they are not gas holders after all.
Yup - that will do it.
I almost missed the tiny green rectangle on HM Registry Map.
I believe SGN have also failed to provide evidence that they have a big enough spanner.
Interesting point.
But it’s just a pile of redundant meccano kit - surely a bog standard spanner will do.
While reading up on something else today I stumbled across this piece on the King’s Cross Gasholder project.
Stunning work, but total cost Inc all the other buildings and works on the project was £3bn
Apartments selling FROM £810k and topping out at £5m
Interesting insight all the same,
Here’s a real nugget from the article:
“The cylinder shape does not lend itself happily to the creation of useful apartments. They’re shaped like slices of pie.”
Beautiful picture
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.
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.
Quality shot…
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 ?
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.
Latest update on the Bell Green Gasholder demolition:
Why?
There are more of us here and we have been discussing it here for longer. It isn’t right to prevent discussion on topics of local interest on this forum.
SE23.life has developed a very healthy critical mass. There are Sydenham residents here because of that critical mass.
However, there’s loads going on Sydenham right now, and it would be a shame if Sydenham residents did not have a modern, positive and active forum of their own.
I am committed to building SE26.life and I am doing it in a way that benefits both the Sydenham and the Forest Hill / Honor Oak communities, by directing web traffic in both directions where ever it makes sense to do so.
A “synergy” (sorry for the cliche) is possible here. All I ask is that SE23.life members who are interested in certain issues in Sydenham (like the gas holders for example), make a one-time, 15-second investment, creating an account on SE26.life - Join me in helping it grow, and deliver to Sydenham residents an amazing platform like the one we have delivered to Forest Hill and Honor Oak residents.
No. I’m happy to leave it to Sydenham residents to decide which forum to use. If they want to join the conversation on either of the Sydenham forums they are most welcome, if they want to join one of the Forest Hill forums they are most welcome.
But people in Forest Hill should be allowed to discuss local issues on their Forest Hill forum rather than having to choose which Sydenham forum to join.
Please don’t drag us all into your little Sydenham forum battle. Just let us have a forum in Forest Hill where we are allowed to discuss the topics of interest to us.
I understand your points and your frustration. I’m not interested in internecine warfare between web-based forums but I am interested in preventing the migration of all local conversation onto Facebook, with its closed-web platform and limited featureset.
I believe the benefits to SE26 residents in having their own “dot life” forum will outweigh the burden of some SE23.life members spending 15 seconds to sign up there.
My long term strategy is based on the idea that a single postcode zone is an optimum size for an online community.
If SE23.life were to grow its reach too far geographically, it might get unwieldy and impersonal (like East Dulwich Forum), or it might dilute its identity and die (like South East Central).
Very occasionally, I will put my foot down and take a big decision like this, knowing that it will disappoint some people. I only do so because I believe the longer-term aim is totally worth it.
The gas holders are just outside the border of SE23 and many people living in SE23 will be affected by what happens to the site. I have no problem with you encouraging conversation on SE26.life but closing down the conversation here doesn’t seem right.
I hear you both. Let’s put this to the wider vote:
0 voters
Okay, misjudgement on my part. I’ll re-open the topic.
It sounds like Lewisham council want to see a decent level of decontamination of the site before it is use for anything else.
Is the current plan still to do nothing with the site after demolition? It would seem a shame if this site, that is no longer wanted for a supermarket, cannot be used for housing. This is exactly the sort of brownfield site that needs developing for housing, rather than every piece of garden space that can be developed.
And if there isn’t a development plan at present would it really be so awful to leave the gas holders in place? I don’t mind seeing them removed if there is something better to replace them, but in the absence of an alternative proposal wouldn’t it make sense to leave them alone for a bit longer?
Comment seems a little premature. Has the small matter of the Planning Inspector’s review been set aside ?
It is common knowledge that Aldi has elected to move into the empty Toys-R-Us unit but I do not believe the developers have removed their proposal subject to the Planning Inspector’s deliberations.
The gas holders time has come - let them be demolished at the earliest opportunity. The authority can decided what levels of remediation are required as and when whatever development type is finally approved.
They have no potential tenant for the large A1 grocery warehouse they are appealing for and the potential outcome of the planning application for the Toys-R-Us unit makes granting permission to a third large A1 grocery retailer on the site seem even more unreasonable.
All the arguments against a second A1 grocery warehouse apply doubly-so to the third. Do you really want to see Aldi and Sainsbury and Lidl/Waitrose all on the Bell Green site?
We can agree to disagree Michael.
The developers still have a major occupant in SGN with approx 180 jobs associated with their move in the proposed new offices.
Your point on an A1 retailer is understood, but the classification of use can be altered too.
There is no increase in overall space (from the original application) and the council has identified that the space issue is one matter that they have received counsel’s advice that they should not defend this point - ie they were wrong in making that decision for the original application. The council has endorsed that recommendation.
And it is all premature until we have reached the conclusion of the Inspector’s work.
Let the gas-holders come down.
It would be better if they were asking the inspector (or the council) to approve a use other than A1.
At this stage I would prefer to see some coordination between the three separate applications with two different decision making bodies, so that the combined impact can properly be considered in the deliberations.
Again, Michael, that position is premature.
The developers will wait until they have the Inspector’s decision. Why second guess the outcome ? Why narrow the available options to them ?
Their teams are probably working towards securing a potential occupant and if significant progress was being made, any necessary change would be applied for.
As it is, potential occupiers will not commit precipitously until the degree of certainty that it will be built, improves.
at least two of us on here live in Norfolk, and you yourself no longer live in SE23, or even London, how much wider will it get? Where do you draw the line on who can and can’t register and post here?!
I personally don’t like to use post codes as area identifiers - just because they don’t work.
I know the post code that I live in, but I’m unsure of the boundary of that post code area. I doubt whether most people could. Post code boundaries don’t follow ward boundaries, parish boundaries, or other sensible boundaries, they invariably cut across or through regions such that two people in one location, either side of a road might be in different post codes.
I’m registered on SE26 and SE23 life fora (and now my post code where I live is NR1)
Do you plan to expand? Can you set up an NR1.life forum for me? or maybe Norwich.life?
rhetorical questions, don’t bother to answer.
back on topic, I’m still interested in the gas holders!
@Jon_Robinson it’s two weeks later, and I thought we resolved the issue at the time?
Anyone can register here. No one is stopping them, least of all me.
I simply want Sydenham residents to have a forum of their own that’s as good as SE23.life. But anyway, this isn’t the right place to have that debate.
Chris, it isn’t a debate for here to please feel free to move this elsewhere but I think the postcode.life model works well and you’ve done well to pioneer it.
What would be really cool is if I could be a member of Se23.life and someone else could be a member of se26.life. Normally we’d just carry on as normal but when there was a cross boundary topic it would appear in both and then we’d all interact.
In this example I suppose that would make it an se24.5.life topic.
Update from the Planning Inspectorate on Case Ref APP/C5690/W/18/3203617
Inquiry (time, date and venue) has been set: 10.00am on 26 to 29 March & 2 April 2019 in Lewisham Council Offices, Laurence House, 1 Catford Road, London SE6 4SW
Estimated number of sitting days is set at 5.
https://acp.planninginspectorate.gov.uk … amp;CoID=0
Follow the document link and a pdf will be presented for download with the above information embedded in it.
Email from SGN:
This simply doesn’t make sense unless they mean that the ground is so toxic that when the area is sold to a developer, it will have to be cleaned up before being built over. Even then, it would be a removal of a detriment not a “benefit”, per se.
I thought that was a bit of a surprising line given that there is still plans for a planning appeal to allow them to build a large A1 grocery store on the site.
I checked back with the person from SGN who sent the email, who responded:
While we are keen for the land to be regenerated to provide a future benefit for the community, we are only dismantling the holders and will be selling the land to a developer. These developers will put together and submit their own plans for the site and any future development, and we do encourage them to consult with the community to take the real needs for the area into account.
In other words that line in the statement was meaningless and without any real substance.
Sounds like Lewisham council are expecting the appeal to be withdrawn by SGN for the additional supermarket on the site of the gas holders.
Passed it this morning and saw a notice informing the public that Keltbray will be the contractor doing the dismantling. For what it’s worth, besides being a bricklayer I also hold CPCS machine tickets and have worked on two of their demolition contracts and from what I saw they’re a very competent and professional outfit.
A bit of writeup from News Shopper with some interesting quotes:
Nice write-up in eastlondonlines including mentions of the dot life forums:
Removing individuality and aesthetics from the community one brick at a time.
I wonder if the demolition could be confined to removing the actual gasholders, plant buildings and back filling the tanks, but leaving the frames in situ. I think most would agree the bell on the holders is redundant.
Or is it too late and demolition commenced?
This would at least allow further discussion on the future of the site and the developer could use or remove the guide frames at a later date? The site would have been made safe in the eyes of SGN and removal of contaminated material completed.
I wonder if that mobile phone tower is coming down too and if coverage in the area will be affected?
I’ve started a petition: https://SaveTheHistoricCDMASignalAtBellGreen
People have enjoyed good phone rception at Pets at Home for years
If ever there was a reason for a 
button.
Nice photos James. I might go and try and catch a glimpse of the peregrine falcon to borrow or at the weekend- never seen one before.
They could still keep the frames. It’s not to late?
I think it would be hard to justify the creation of a conservation area in view of the surroundings of th gas holders, which is a modern retail park. Should the Council try, I think it would likely be challengable as being unreasonable and disproportionate, so there would be significant legal costs during and when they would inevitably lose.
They, being the owners, could but they don’t want to.
I feel the crux of the issue is no-one is willing to pay for their maintenance. Simply, gas energy users are not willing to pay through higher utility bills, Council tax payers are not willing to pay through higher Council tax bills and a sufficient number of campaigners are not willing to pay through private donations (I note it was a petition not a Go Fund Me page that was created).
I agree with you.
I am realistic, I know that it would be impractical to leave them as they are or just as frames.
I do think that redevelopment of the area should take the frames into account, there is loads of potential.
The area does not really lend is self to a park, but there are many other options, even as retail. A developer would obviously need to take maintenance of the frames into account.
In the long term, the guide frames will become much rarer as a vast majority of gasholders get pulled down.
Then there may be regret that they were allowed to just be dismantled, without any real plans for the site.
From the SGN site, Ofgem are apparently funding the removal of the holders across England and Scotland; 50% from a total of 110 are due to be demolished by 2021.
I didn’t know that they are often filled with contaminated water, oil and sludge, and I expect it is the management of that which contributes to an onerous maintenance cost over time. Perhaps the worst case would be a leak in the base which isn’t readily accessible or easy to fix, yet could allow contaminants to pass into the land or ground water. I guess as the structure ages this becomes more likely. So while most of us look at the visible structure and wonder how much it can cost to maintain that, the true cost could be hidden from direct view.
It’s just a guess though, and I must say that when I first saw them I thought they were an eye sore, but will probably miss them once gone. For a while anyway.
According to the beeb, English Heritage have listed 12 sites for preservation in England, so they won’t all be lost, and some are being moved out redeveloped:
There is some vaguely interesting info from SGN here too:
https://www.sgn.co.uk/Responsibility/Gas-Holders/Our-Responsibilities/
My point was that the gas holders don’t make an area great enough in size to make a conservation area. The gas holders would need to be independently listed structures, either nationally or locally.
Old Baths might not have been a pool - it was a public washhouse and those often included swimming pools, but not always (Eg in central Wandsworth the baths were just that, the ones in Battersea were both baths and pool). Looking at old maps, it’s hard to tell from the shape of the building which it might have been (I’ve never been inside it either).
Off topic, I know!
Nice James - is it mainly there start and end of the day? I had a quick look at lunch today but could not see it. Plenty of ‘bird food’ around!
A summary of last night’s meeting has just been shared:
it’s like something out of Inception
Beautiful. And not in their original location.
Yes, a studio apartment is £825000 and a 3 bed penthouse is 7.5 million. Not sure Bell Green can command those sort of prices.
Whatever happens next needs some careful consideration to traffic planning. The opening of Aldi has taken the carpark from 1/4 full to almost at capacity seemingly every time I’ve been down.
@Dave_Benson I agree £825,000 sounds a bit cheap for a studio these days
