New retail development at Bell Green

There are plans to bring more retail to Bell Green including a second supermarket.

There is a public exhibition on Wednesday 7th December and Saturday 10th December.

Good share @Michael - Bell Green is so useful, and new development can only be a good thing for us in SE23 (though maybe not for residents in the immediate area?).

I just wish it were a Waitrose / M&S rather than an Aldi!

@anon5422159 Genuine question: in what way do you think more development of this sort will benefit SE23? I have lived just north of Bell Green for 17 years. I can’t see any benefits locally that have followed from the expansion of the retail park. The shops are certainly handy, but for me it’s a redirection of spending and driving, not any increase and I can see little benefit to the local community.

I love Aldi and Lidl. Would love to see am Aldi. I also love the customer, you know the ones, open the box of curling tongs to see the curling tongs even though there is a picture of the curling tongs on the box and then just leave them out of the box before moving on. Endless amusement.

Their cold meats and smoked salmon are really good and who doesn’t like tools.

Bell Green is the only place I can get a decent range of garden stuff, DIY stuff and home appliances and electronics locally.

I’ll always use the high street for things I can carry without the car (if they’re available).

The Bell Green estate creates loads of jobs for local youngsters. It’s got easy and free parking. It probably competes with the high street for certain goods, which is a shame. We’ll all differ in our opinions on this, but more choice and more jobs is universally positive, IMO.

Define loads of jobs.

Bell Green does bring some things together in one place, but they were all already available to me within five minutes drive of Bell Green, bar Currys. Two large Homebases within minutes (both much better than B&Q). Pets at Home at New Cross. Aldi in Penge. If any of those suffer loss of trade due to Bell Green, does that affect jobs in those areas? Economics is mostly about moving money and jobs around.

What about new housing instead?

The new expansion alone will create 160-200 jobs. I’d imagine that’s equivalent to the number of jobs created by Dartmouth Road.

The population of Lewisham is growing like wildfire. Housing issues aside, doesn’t this mean we can accommodate a small handful of new shops without killing existing businesses? I prefer B&Q to Homebase. Some may prefer Homebase. Choice is good.

Rachael, you made one of the most “liked” posts on SE23.life when you explained why new pizza joints were good for the area, and didn’t necessarily create a zero-sum game. Doesn’t the same logic apply to some extent here?

That’s a different model to retail parks. But I’ll give it consideration!

Sorry I am confused, we are complaining about building shops on a derelict site?

Well lets hope they actually make changes to accommodate cycling and walking access in the new plans. It’s diabolical trying to get there by foot or two wheels. The footpath on Perry Rise has cars parked on it, and on bin days its near impossible to walk down there let alone push a buggy (which its nigh on impossible to do on any day). When you finally do arrive, there are no dropped kerbs or pedestrian crossings - except if you want to go from Macdonalds to Sainsbury’s (which assumes you’ve already driven there).

Unbelievably if you look at the road surface on Perry Rise it has cycles painted on it - indicating that its a cycle route - but you take your life in your hands if you go down there on a bike. However, even if you take the long way on a bike (along the waterlink way to Windsford Rd and then up Houston Rd) its still about 10 mins to Forest Hill and you are more likely to arrive alive (although you still have to battle the A205 if you want to go past the railway tracks). If you do go via Perry Rise on a bike (and survive) it is only 5mins.

Once you do arrive however, the cycle parks are clean and protected from the weather and safe.

Struggling to find any actual plans or proposals but I am supposed to be working. Anyone got any links to something of substance?

Excellent news! But does it warrant another supermarket? Also as old gas site I believe there is restrictions on gas work site regarding houses as the ground would have to be taken away and dealt with appropriately due to be contaminated. All round good news.

Personally I would like to see a new secondary school and homes created as well as some smaller retail. But I suspect the cost of decontaminating the land would be too great, and any remaining gas storage might preclude building a school on the site.

The railway bridge is in desperate need to be widened and the developers of this site really ought to have paid for this already.

There’s an interesting discussion about this on the Sydenham community forum.

@Michael: is there a website on that leaflet? The ‘Contact us’ details are cut off in your photo and I can’t qute figure out where the map is showing the development will be.

Indeed some interesting views there and I share some of the opinion about commerical spaces dominating especially as it all seems to be boxy and lacking in any creativity. However without any proper sources Ill refrain from commenting further.

I did think that this image was rather nice.

No, just questioning whether doing so is the right choice. Which I believe is what consultations are for. I have no objection to the space being developed. I’ll be sad to see the elegant (and historic) gas holders go, though.

@comoed is entirely right about pedestrian access. The first phase of development completely failed to make safe pedestrian access into Sainsbury’s and between Sainsbury’s and Sports Direct. And given that there is a river and its associated walks at the back of the site, I’d like to see some thought given to improving access there.

Meanwhile, the car park in the most recent part of the development is a shocker - the kerbs are all too high and protrude too far. You need the width of both lanes to exit from the parking areas. Potty.

@Foresthillnick unlike the other mock-ups, this is actually a real installation in Kings Cross along side the canal there. Really pretty, and its transformed a rather run-down, dull area into a very pleasant place.

I’d love to see something like that on this site rather than more retail, but who’d pay for it?

I was so disappointed with the landscaping and design when the first phase of the retail park was built. It so unimaginative and unfriendly to pedestrians. Bleak in the winter and hot as a desert in the summer. I had hoped we moved on from such bland strip-mall development, but no.

Dos are always welcome, so I’m not nay-saying any development at all. But something less soulless would do more for local residents than more of the same, in my opinion.

I would just like to put in a little reminder that quite a lot of local residents in that are don’t shop at Waitrose and would most likely never use a park. As much as “we” would like both let us not forget the local demographic would appreciate a Lidl or Aldi more than both of those.

With all respect I don’t think any of us can speak with any authority as to what the local demographic would or would not appreciate. Although having said that I can’t imagine any demographic that doesn’t use a park. Go to any park in London and all ages, races, creeds, colours and social grades are using it. In fact you might successfully argue those of us “waitrose shoppers” with our own gardens are perhaps less likely to use a park than those without a private green space.

Perhaps there should equally be a little reminder that quite a lot of local residents don’t shop at Aldi. Just because you do doesn’t automatically make it a good idea or mean that everybody wants to. I’ve never been to Aldi so have no opinion either way. Equally, just because Chris likes shopping in Waitrose it doesn’t automatically make it a good idea.

@anon93536262 thanks for the photos. Definitely captures the gasometers in the best light. Perhaps there could be a photo exhibition inside the new Aldi store, so that people can enjoy the best views at any time. They have a certain beauty and some have been listed, but I’m not convinced that every gasometer needs to be listed.

Seems supermarkets are an emotive issue!

Let’s put it to the SE23 jury. Which supermarket would you rather see joining Sainsbury at Bell Green:

UPDATE: poll closed. After feedback I’ve created a better poll

Why not a choice of non-supermarkets?
Why not include keeping it how it is, building a secondary school (grammar if you want to cause extra page hits), building a Bakerloo line terminus, building housing, or a massive sink hole to replace the ones in the town centre?

Can we have a None Option, please, and also a No Opinion option. Otherwise the survey is flawed.

@Londondrz - Your comment about parks mystifies me. As someone who uses local parks 365 days a year, I can tell you they are busy, vibrant places packed with people from every demographic you can imagine. As more housing is being built without private outdoor space, we need more not fewer parks.

The above survey is for people’s preferred choice of supermarket, given that a second supermarket is coming.

But we can have multiple polls. By all means, create another poll for other things we’d like to see as part of the plans.

Not sure this forum really represents the local demographic. Also there’s a Waitrose not a million miles away at Beckenham.

As someone who has designed questionnaires for a living, I can tell you your survey is meaningless if you are asking respondents to self-select. Not giving other options means also means you can’t draw any conclusions from non-responding rates. And you don’t need multiple polls. One is more efficient and effective.

Of course none of that really matters given the respondents are limited to members of this forum. But I can’t let sloppy methodology go unremarked.

That was my point.

I think the preference for supermarket is really a separate topic from the specific site use of Bell Green. The poll should be separated into a different topic (not necessarily related to Bell Green), or the poll about Bell Green should include a wider diversity of possible uses.

@Michael, @RachaelDunlop, @Foresthillnick, @anon10646030, @dechips, @Dave - after feedback I’ve created a better poll and closed the above straw poll.

A Bakerloo station, or even a regular station on the existing NR line would be good in both improving access to the site via public transport and also a good facility for local residents, though it may prove a double-edged sword from a traffic perspective if people used the existing car park for commuting/park-and-ride.

What about a cinema?

I would second a cinema as the parking and space for restaurants on site would make it an attractive option. Surely large supermarkets are becoming a thing of the past with the ease of the delivery options available. Who needs Waitrose when you have Ocado - except for the perceived boost to house prices.

@Chipcity Can I just point out that a lot of people in Bell Green don’t have access to Ocado and the thought of using a Waitrose would be laughable. There are a lot of people there who don’t get to go to the cinema as it is expensive.

Can we step back and view the site through the eyes of the locals as apposed to us from FH who cycle there on our Bromptons.

Look at it from the locals point of view and not near local.

@Londondrz - I agree we shouldn’t assume everyone wants what we want. But I’m wondering if you are also making assumptions about people local to Bell Green. Do you have information on the demographics on the area? As it happens, I live 10 minutes walk from Bell Green which I assume makes me local. It’s a very mixed area as far as socio-economics are concerned. Plenty of Brompton-riders, Ocado vans a-plenty.

Let’s not forget any development with parking will have a larger catchment area than those immediately local.

It was meant somewhat tongue in cheek - the bit about Ocado and Waitrose. I would still like one but could not afford to shop there everyday. I agree that cinema prices are much more expensive than I remember them but I am not sure that there is such a economic divide of people using cinemas as you suggest.

Deliveries are usually free and Tesco and Asda deliver also and without a car surely that is invaluable to people as opposed to another large supermarket.

Being at the far end of Cranston Road I’m about a ten min walk away as well and so I think I can consider myself “local” along with plenty of other people around here. I wonder what gives you the authority to speak for me and all these other local people when you say we/they don’t use the cinema because it is too expensive for the poor dears or they would prefer a certain type of supermarket.
To be clear you nor I speak for anyone other than ourselves.
You might perfectly well argue that having a cinema there makes film watching a much cheaper experience as travel costs are minimised - thus bringing solace and comfort to the huddled impoverished masses of the locality.
Oddly enough one of the biggest sellers of Brompton Bikes in the country is about a mile away from Bell Green in rich affluent Catford - but of course the “locals” can’t afford them…

All very true, however the thing about healthy debate is being able to look at a view from all sides. A cinema has been suggested as has a Waitrose. I am just asking people to think beyond their bubbles and to imagine that which would benefit ALL.

Personally a cinema would be great but under utilised by myself and family, I just checked and Fantastic Beasts for myself, the wife and two kids under 12 would be £66.90. That is for the 3pm show at Greenwich. Now I am sure there are cheaper theaters but you have to admit it’s not cheap. Throw is some overprices nibbles and the cost ratchets up quite a bit.

Now that to you may not be expensive but it is to me and we have a decent income.

Anyway, I hope the debate continues, the important thing is that the site is developed to suit as many as it can.

@Londondrz : But the argument works both ways. I wouldn’t shop at an Aldi because I find they don’t tend to stock what I want to buy. I would use a cinema.

As for thinking outside my bubble - hmm. That assumes you know what my bubble is. My kids went to primary school five minutes walk from Bell Green. Many of their friends live in the area. For ten years Lower Sydenham was the entirety of their social lives. I KNOW people who live in and around Bell Green. Do you? Are you aware of the sweeping generalisations you made in your previous post? I absolutely agree we can only talk from our own experience. Which is not what you were doing when you said most locals couldn’t afford to use a cinema. You also assume all cinema visitors are families. What about couples? Singles? Friends? My kids as teens go to the cinema often as that the cost of one ticket and is an affordable monthly outing with freinds.

You know what, I cant be arsed anymore. All I have asked is for people to think of alternatives. Anyone that seems to offer a differing pinion these days is shot down.

Enjoy.

I’m genuinely confused by this response. There’s a world of difference between saying ‘I can’t afford to go to the cinema’ and saying ‘No one living in Bell Green can afford to go to the cinema’. Pointing out the difference and explaining why I think your assumption is incorrect is not suppressing your opinion.

Well that’s a shame. Everyone has an opinion and a right to voice it - I can’t see anyone getting shouted down.

Still moving on I still haven’t seen any real plans or proposals - I guess going along on Wednesday may shed some light but I don’t know if I can make it. Anyone going that can report back? We can debate all we like here but until we can see proposals we are whistling in the wind.

How about an indoor ski slope?

Only joking - well sort of.

I would like a bowling alley / soft play / trampoline park / indoor skate park type thing. Or maybe a Pizza Hut so those of us with kids can go out for dinner at last

Re a park, instead of a new park here, I’d prefer the other end of the retail park, by the river opened up. There’s a little play park there and the river walk is lovely but it’s so hidden away, would be lovely to have a more welcoming entrance to there and a cafe or something.

I use Bell Green frequently. As I don’t drive it’s much easier for me to have all these shops in one place rather than having to get public transport to 4 or 5 different places. and it’s actually an easyish walk for me with a buggy from HOP whereas Penge, New Cross aren’t (although I have walked to both before, Penge by accident mind you).

I’d really like better bus links to it though. I usually walk there but get the bus back and the little bus that runs to Forest Hill is usually heaving. A bus that went all the way from HOP would be a dream.

That’s not the craziest idea that’s ever been put forward here!

When my daughter was small we went a couple of times what used to be called Xscape in Glasgow (it seems to have a new name/owner now): http://soar.intu.co.uk/ It was great fun!

Are there any ski slopes inside London? Could be a good draw to bring people to the area.

I took my kids to Xscape in Glasgow when they were younger & they (and I) loved it, there was one in Milton Keynes aswell if I remember rightly - I think this would be great

Thanks to the latest water main burst, there’s an outdoor downhill waterskiing slope between Devonshire Road and the railway bridge.

Here’s the map of proposals.

aldi map.jpg800×861 217 KB

There are no plans to make any transport improvements including the issue of the tiny bridge on Southend Lane. And given that nothing happened in the first two phases, there is no reason to expect this development to make any difference.

Apparently residential is not viable on the site (mainly because of the underground bentonite wall across the site to prevent contamination to surrounding ground) and Aldi have identified a need for more supermarkets in the local area. The people I spoke to were not aware of any other needs in the area - even when I suggested cinema.

I can understand the dismantling of the gasometers (unless they get listed status), what I don’t understand is why this entire site has only been built to a single storey (not just this part of the site). It would be possible to put residential or other uses above the Aldi, but they don’t want to do that. I pointed to Sports Direct with five floors of residential above and they looked disinterested.

This is out of town planning in a suburban location - a wasted opportunity.

Exactly. Just because the space was being wasted before it looks as though they want to use it sub-optimally now. If they really were interested in using the space well (and this would cost a little more) they could put the Aldi in the existing car park outside toys r us (its about the same size) and put the existing car park underneath.

Possibly not looking at more than one story due to foundations being inadequate with the barrier in place?

That’s certainly possible, and yet residential was possible above SportsDirect, which can be seen within the bentonite wall on the map (it is the space within the dotted line on the map curving round Aldi and heading straight into SportsDirect).

The developers claimed that all residential would only be viable if it were 10 storeys high - that would be almost twice as tall as the gasometers by my estimate. I thought that residential above a shop would be generate a decent return on investment, but apparently not enough.

Well that looks fairly uninspiring… I would have liked to have seen more green space. I agree Michael, this isn’t some industrial site miles from nowhere, it’s a very residential suburban area!

The car parks at Sainsburys and Toys R Us / B&Q are massive and often half empty anyway, the whole section of car park to the left of Mcdonalds is underused.

What about pedestrian crossings between the Aldi site and the other shops? I can’t see any on that map. Or will that be ignored as with Sports Direct? When I go down to those shops I often park on one site and then walk around to the different shops as it seems lazy to drive from one car park to another (unless I have something heavy) but trying to get across to Sports Direct is a challenge in itself.
Also is there a pedestrian link to the river walk from this side? (Apart from the access point near the railway bridge on the other side of Sainsburys). I have never noticed one.
It would also be helpful to see what the proposed Aldi building will look like.

On the one hand I am in favour of creation of new businesses and jobs; however I would also like to see if there has been any study done on the impact on local traffic, pollution, whether public transport should be increased, creation of cycle lanes etc. For those who don’t have a car, it does make sense to have a few shops together in one place, but only if the public transport supports this!
Personally I feel that traffic in this area has increased over the past couple of years. My kids all have asthma as do many children at their school. I haven’t noticed Lewisham Council taking any measures to improve air quality in the area.

heres another photo of the proposed plans from Wednesday

IMG_4078.JPG2448×3264 1.39 MB

What’s an SGN unit?

At a guess, I’d say these guys. https://www.sgn.co.uk

#facepalm. D’oh!

Glad I wasn’t the only one

Things that have merit:

• brownfield unused site being cleared of contaminants and being brought into use.
• improvements to parking provision directly for customers of the Livesey Hall - will reduce the flood of cars taking up residential parking spaces up and around Perry Hill and its off-shoots that occurs when there is an event at the hall.
• introduction of potential new job opportunities for the local community
• two anchor businesses, ALDI and Scotia Gas Networks

Things that will be debated hotly:

• is the architecture of gas holders beautiful or horrendous
• can any Traffic Management Plan address the impact of traffic increases, particularly on Perry Rise and on Perry Hill

Assessment of “Key Facts” as presented at the exhibition.

Stated Key Fact: the development will introduce 160 to 200 jobs.
Scrutiny: Presenters at the exhibition seemed uncertain about how the numbers had been estimated. SGN’s representative indicated that in fact 150-160 SGN posts would be redistributed/transferred from other SGN locations in and around London. These are not new jobs. Discussions with Kier’s representative focussed around ALDI perhaps having circa 55 new personnel working on a shift basis and a prospective new restaurateur having some 20 to 25 new staff. Therefore the number of new jobs being made available to the local community may be more accurately cast at 70 to 80. This number is not insubstantial but is also predicated on a restaurateur being prepared to endeavour to establish a new business in an area not short of a wide range of restaurants & cafes.

Oh - and hello to the new site - good to see a number of “weel-kent” faces here.

I take back what I said about cinemas and apologize for my stance on them. We went to the Dulwich Picture House last night for the first time. £19 for two adults and two kids. If someone can replicate this experience then I am all for it. It is a little gem.

Some, don’t have cars to drive so close proximity to shops may be important.
Also, housing becomes more necessary when areas become self contained.

Hi Rachael, everyone, I am new to the forum - recently moved to Forest Hill, right at the bottom of Perry Rise. Just came across this thread and was wondering if there had been any more news around the proposed development? I can’t seem to find anything online. Strongly agree with you, that shops are good only if the development is well thought out and offers plenty of green space and good design. Really not keen on large soulless shopping areas which prove disastrous to build a sense of community…

Welcome to the forum @Alice_Etcetera!

Yes, green space. A nice home for the local starlings, of which we are lucky to have so many.

Don’t get that the more retail units the better love to have those shops close by

Well it is nice to have a selection of shops nearby but the sheer lack of imagination and the lack of variety in these shops leaves me cold.
A car park, and Aldi and a SGN unit - hardly inspiring is it, it’s not like it is going to become a destination spot for locals and tourists. Do we really need another supermarket right next to the existing supermarket - is this what we really want or need in our locality? It seems like the easiest, cheapest, most unimaginative option possible.

I would agree but it is a retail park so I don’t need anything fancy there luckily we have dartmouth road for the more inspiring options

Agreed this is not imaginative. With the area under pressure to provide extra housing this should be mixed development at least.

Very good point - surely Lewisham could make up its housing quotas here and avoid taking chainsaws to One Tree Hill and surrounding green space.

In fairness, I do not think that Lewisham intended putting housing next to HOP station, in fact their policy backs this up. It is an unverified neighbourhood plan that proposes this:

The point is still valid though: given a choice, housing development in backland areas or other green space in an urban area is surely less appropriate than on top of a one storey supermarket for instance. I wonder if the council is even able to make a condition for this.

Frankly I’d welcome an Aldi or a Lidl in the area. Both consistently top consumer polls for quality, price and service.

Cinema and a TGI Fridays.

Pop corn, get your pop corn here!

Well there are two Lidl stores not far away if that is your poison - Both are within a brisk stroll of the proposed development so I don’t think an additional Aldi really adds much except competition…

Neither are in SE23 but then again Sainsbury’s isn’t either. Personally I rarely use any supermarket so an additional Aldi is of no interest but if it has to be something like that then a SeeWoo or Wing Yip would be nice and would offer something different.

I hear that the Safeway Coop Somerfield Morrison Budgen in Sydenham currently available. That would make a good spot for Aldi. Leaving the gas cylinders available as an cinema (inside the cylinders).

However, a better idea for the failed supermarket site in Sydenham might be to turn it back into a cinema:

(image from https://lewishamlostcinemas.wordpress.com/lewishams-lost-cinemas/)

Unfortunately without easy car parking nothing other than Express style stores are likely to succeed. The Budgen store is probably too large to be useful for that. As for a Cinema again no easy parking the one at the rear of Lidl is a pain to get out of if you want to turn right on exit. Plus Cinemas are suffering most films go to video fairly quickly and the costs are fairly prohibitive. If there was a case for a cinema the Capitol in FH would probably be a better choice no parking but easier transport links.
I think we have to face the reality that out of town retail parks are the future so my thoughts are conversion to housing/flats then perhaps a small retail unit or restaurant would be sustainable on the lower level.

You’re right of course. Lidl should close both and centralise here with a larger offering.

I don’t think the parking is too bad for the Safeway site, a small detour via Newlands Park gets you onto Sydenham Road. No worse than the detour to get in Sainsbury’s car park in Forest Hill - which incidently would provide a convenient car park for The Capitol Cinema in Forest Hill.

I did suggest housing above the proposed Aldi at Bell Green (as I mentioned above) but they don’t currently want to do this despite the precedent set by Sports Direct site next door.

It’s not habitable because of the cost of clearance makes it unattractive.

From within the South circular it is a significant hassle to get to the car park - out onto the South Circular (which hardly needs more traffic) and back in again. I can only draw the conclusion that the Council would be happy for the High Street/London Road to fail as a shopping/entertainment venue - then they can justify building more votes (social housing) on the Sainsbury’s/car park site and make us all go shopping in Bell Green.

I don’t really get the problem with the ‘detour’ into the FH car park. It isn’t really a detour. It’s where the car park is situated. You are already in your car, getting to the car park is just part of your journey, no? It seems like hassle because there’s only one way to get there. But once you are there, it couldn’t be more convenient for Sainsburys and the rest of FH is within a short walk.

Agreed. But it would be a lot more convenient if the parking meters worked more reliably. Last time I was there they were both broken - and my phone battery promptly died so I couldn’t even download Ringo (or whatever it’s called). It was too risky to park for the 10 minutes I needed so I had to find a space in David’s Road and scrounge any change I could find in the car.

There is always the car park behind the station.

If both the meters are broken I would assume you don’t have to pay (please correct me if I’m wrong). Not everyone has a smart phone so the Council can’t make Ringo a default if the meters are out. In that situation I put a note in my windscreen with the time and date. LB Lewisham can check the machine logs against any claim that they were not working. I’ve done this successfully in the past.

In any case, we seem to be drifting off the topic here.

I suspect that this is a form of land banking. They will make a better profit by waiting for further uplift? I don’t know what can be done about this but it is a big problem all over London.

Michael seems to have forgotten an earlier incarnation of this thread where it was explained that it would cost too much to build housing on the Bell Green site due to having to decontaminate the area and remove the ground dome.

Supermarkets don’t always like residential above supermarkets as it can cause management issues. Of course if the site is allocated for mixed retail/residential they would be obliged to offer it to secure planning permission, but I don’t think that is the case here.

I am always struck when I go to or past the Sainsburys there how incredibly land hungry it is.

Yes well that does depend doesn’t it. If the Bakerloo was thought to be going there then I believe that this would make the supermarkets/developers much more keen. Compare with proposals for New Cross Gate (Sainsbury) and Lewisham (Tesco) sites.

Until a few years ago I dont remember anyone referring to the Bell Green towers in tones other than “eyesore”. Funny how times change.

I have always liked em but I love industrial architecture. I realise I am prolly in a minority but to me there is nothing as lovely as an electrical sub station or water works.
Seeing them from the top of some of the hills has always made me happy and I’d be glad to see them retained. On the other hand if they are to go I’d like something more than an Aldi to replace them.

As industrial architecture goes, I think they are quite attractive, and should stay if they’re maintained well and integrated tastefully into a new project. Context is important - if the gas holders stood amid rolling hills in the countryside, I’d want them demolished. But locally, they don’t detract hugely from what’s there already, and they also add a bit of character.

Oh I am a great fan of industrial architecture but the locals (well all the checkout people at Sainsburys who lived in the area) disliked them as an eyesore.

Just out of curiosity, how many years is it since they were decommissioned? I often wondered at them going up and down though you never actually saw them move.

A good question @AndyS - there is some information here which also details the consequences of the original retail development.

One thing that I had missed or not fully appreciated is the link between the Livesey Hall, Memorial and the gas works.

However the heritage document, submitted as part of the overall application, states: “The two gasholders contribute to the setting of the Livesey Memorial Hall owing to the historic relationship with the former gasworks.”

A gas works was set up on the site by the Southern Suburban Gas Co., and Grade II Livesy Hall is a memorial to Sir George Livesy, built after his death in 1908

The hall was both a memorial to Livesy, described in the documents as “the outstanding gas engineer of his generation” and a social club for workers.

The structures, whatever anyone thinks about them, are a liability to someone right now.

So what does it cost for the owner to ensure 24/7 year-round public safety? I mean, if the site isn’t properly secure and someone injures themselves in there then they could be into some kind of negligence claim.

No doubt the contaminated land could be neutralised in some way or other and one or both of the gasometers could be enhanced or integrated into a residential design scheme but, realistically, this part of Lower Sydenham is blighted by heavy traffic use, both on the main road and into the retail park, so the potential selling price of the flats isn’t going to be exactly high end.

So, limiting factors on pricing combined with massive outlay on land decontamination and *Dulux (*abbreviation for painting 2 hu-poxy-mungous gasometers) equals, nothing but a gaspipe dream!

The historic buildings and monuments people are happy for it all to go so my view is that if anyone wants to the dictate what goes on here, and if that prevents the current owners from selling the site, they should at least be prepared to take on or share the responsibility and cost of securing the site until such time as a better option than ALDI comes along.

I’d be surprised if there could ever be any purely financial justification for keeping the gasometers but, if the Bakerloo Line gets down there, it won’t be too long before a resi scheme including a large gasometer-shaped (steel pseudo framed) block of flats could be a justi-viable option. };^)~

Any update to the plans?

Also does anyone know what happened to the plan for a cinema at bell Green?

No, but there is talk of a Nandos and cinema at Kirkdale in Sydenham. Nandos is awaiting result of planning application.

I hope they get it! We need a Nando’s around here. True sign of gentrification if you ask me.

All sorts of obstacles are being put in their way apparently because they’ve stated 15% of their trade will be takeaway - comments about mopeds, deliveròo and even about obesity!

No doubt by people who would prefer a Pret or a Costa or something they like no doubt.
We all know grilled chicken and obesity go hand in hand!

Residents generally seem to be in favour Other forces appear to be at work. Interesting thread on Sydenham forum.

Interesting, never understand why people not interested in a business feel the need to put objections in. Not the first time I have seen it happen. Sure it won’t be the last either.

I shall have a look for the thread you speak of.

Here you go: https://sydenham.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=17141

You may want to get comfy. Make a cup of tea. It’s a lengthy thread. You may also want to search that forum for discussions on the Windmill Pub for background to some of the animosities on display.

Cheers

When planning applications take more than six months to be decided it suggests that the council are demanding further information or they are expecting to reject the application but are giving the developer time to amend their proposals.

In this case I suspect the developers are hoping that somebody else will find a use for the old Coop on Sydenham Road, because with that remaining empty the policies are really very clear that there is no good case for building a new supermarket out of town and next door to a hypermarket.

The sequential test guides main town centre uses towards town centre locations first, then, if no town centre locations are available, to edge of centre locations, and, if neither town centre locations nor edge of centre locations are available, to out of town centre locations, with preference for accessible sites which are well connected to the town centre. It supports the viability and vitality of town centres by placing existing town centres foremost in both plan-making and decision-taking.

Source: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/ensuring-the-vitality-of-town-centres

That is without even discussing the historical context for the development (which has been discussed above).

The full text of the objection I wrote (with assistance) on behalf of the Forest Hill Society can be read here. By the time I had finished writing the objection I was amazed how strong the case against this development was - based on Lewisham, London, and national planning policies.

If the viability of the town centre location was so good,how come neither the Coop nor Budgens could make it work?
You can try and force your planning will on the people, however, market forces will prevail.If the location was able to sustain a business then said business would occupy the site, idealogical wishing does not pay the bills.
So in 12 months time when the site is still unoccupied what then? Perhaps given the housing shortage, conversion to flats?

I just love those who present objections without recourse to common sense or suggestion as to what a solution might be. I also think that those ‘historical’ Gas holders if so important should be adopted paid for and maintained by a society interested in doing so. That way tax and ratepayers can be relieved of any burden for their continued existence.

I am sure this post will get both positive and negative responses so would request that all suggestions contain a solution that is workable as I would welcome and wholeheartedly any sensible suggestion.

I think a lot of these arguments - for and against - have been made already and at length. It’s in the hands of the planners now.

Random thought: I wonder how many people who support a project let the planners know? Is there even a process to do that?

There is for private dwellings, not sure about commercial.

Budgen’s failure was not a reflection on Sydenham. Coop sold the store to Budgens as part of a package of all other former former Sommerfield stores when the Coop group was in crisis. Since then Tesco and Sainsbury have both moved onto the high street in Sydenham - on the site of former pubs.

I’ve no doubt the site in Sydenham would make a good location for a supermarket or for another business, such as a cinema (as I suggested above). In the meantime, the further development of Bell Green will only have a detrimental impact on Sydenham town centre - which is against government planning strategy.

The very fact that Tesco and Sainsburys have occupied sites previously pubs makes my point . Changing demographics and market forces come into play so 25,000 pubs have closed! Despite government extending opening hours.

If the site was ‘valuable’ for a retail enterprise it would be snapped up, if the need for a cinema was so great someone would be restoring the Capitol in FH as most of the infrastructure exists. As previously stated if the high street is to be maintained then perhaps a proviso for out of town retail should carry a subsidy charge for in town shops? Like it or not people shop with cars be they private or taxis having no parking facilities that are convenient is a big drawback. Maybe an indoor market could be established with erected stalls and different offers on different days, bric a brac/ antiques on sundays, vegetables/ groceries, thurs/fri etc.
So if any objectors can only spout Government policy and it does not work does that mean possibly the policy is wrong or should we just enforce it? Personally there is a severe shortage of housing for older single people who want social housing (according to Lewisham Homes) so flats would be great and given the proximity to the high street, shopping would be easy and sustain the high street.

Again positive suggestions rather than dogma would seem to be the answer.

My confusion has always be caused by the vast gap in requirements vs available space in the old Budgens site.

The square footage falls very short of the requirements of the proposed store.
As well as @Wynell mentions, method of transport. Look at ANY Lidl or Aldi site and you will see one of the biggest issues has always been parking.
With that in mind it would almost be irresponsible of either company to use the existing site for such a store.

With regards to the gas holders. We all hold on to something precious to us, I have many memories is staring in awe at the holders, but times change. The rest of the site is already a large, busy retail site. Surely it has been zoned in such a way, and the traffic management installed to serve it. Rarely are there queues in the road leading into it.

I’m confused by the constant demand for more and more housing, jamming people into smaller and smaller spaces, but the rejection of services to support the growing population.
I have great respect for carefully thought out planning, but it seems more and more that decisions are being made based on a fixed policy, rather than site by site consideration. All seems very hit and miss.

I am sure the old Budgens site has potential for something, but medium sized food retailer seems a tough case to argue. Maybe someone would consider getting a Nisa franchise in there?

Going back to @Wynell post, the conversion to housing would also be a good idea surely.

A point of information: there is a large free car park right beside the old Co-op / Budgens site.

Large but already somewhat busy due to the Lidl there and other local businesses. Certainly isn’t designed for high flows of traffic that the bigger sites see.
Access to it is bloody narrow and awkward. Only once car can enter or leave at a time.

Suited for a small increase in traffic, but nothing too busy or it would take the parking away from the local businesses. Not to mention very close to the busy junction of Mayow Rd. The slightest snarl up would cause horrible delays.

Screenshot_20170914-1226041080×1920 775 KB

I use this car park regularly. Never a snarl up at the entrance. The area below where you’ve marked is also part of the free car park and is never more than a third full currently. Lidl actually has its own car park beside this one.

We’re not talking about volumes of traffic for a large store, are we? We’re talking about a largish convenience store. This car park is bigger than the one Aldi has in Penge.

At the moment is won’t snarl up, my point is if it got busier and was used instead of a new site at Bell Green.

I agree, for a convenience store or a couple of smaller stores under one roof, it would be ideal.

Aldi in Penge causes bloody nightmares at times with people waiting to get in and out, on a junction. Same with Southend Lane and other sites.

RE the pic, the marks are from Google Maps, not me
The car parks in their entirety are OK in size but would not support much more of an increase.
The access to the car park via Lidl is entrance only though is it not?

Ere, hold on a minute, that’s SE26 anyway… What do I care lol.

To me the old Co-op/Budgens store has indeed great potential - to be knocked down and built on with something nicer. Shame to see the store go but not the building itself. It’s a prime site for a good-sized housing development of attractive architecture, with smaller-scale commercial units at ground floor for whatever the high street needs - maybe space for market stalls as suggested. This location is town centre material - the building is quite the opposite. Putting a local landmark there could do wonders for other high street businesses. Maybe one day even Audi could be pushed out to somewhere more suitable - Bell Green anyone?

Unless I am confused one cannot exit and turn towards Bell Green as there is an island obstructing vehicles? So you have to go around the houses?
What about trolleys being wheeled across the road to the car park? Or will purchases be limited to a single bags worth, thus negating the profitability of a supermarket.
So we will wait and as previously mentioned we can revisit this subject in 12 months time and decide then what to do with the empty shop. In the meantime we can enjoy the Gas holders and the enrichment they endow on our lives.

Trolleys? Convenience store. As it was before for at least 20 years.

You are correct about the no right hand turn onto Sydenham Road, though.

My point really is that there IS parking if people are minded to use it.

Site is too big for a convenience store, and with Tesco and Sainsburys plus other small shops, never going to work.
20 years ago there was no Ocado, deliveroo, Just eat, hungry house etc.

There is also reallly convenient parking at the back of Sainsburys FH snd plenty at Bell Green so why struggle and detour? As said previously if it was such a jewel in the high street it would be snapped up
Flats with small shop lots

Okay, so I don’t know what the definition of a convenience store versus a full blown supermarket is. But I do know there has been a small supermarket on that site since before I moved to the area, and that was 18 years ago. It changed hands as the chains themselves got bought out: Safeway became Somerfield became the Co-Op became Budgens. The store was always well used, the changes in ownership were national takeovers, not a reflection on this store itself. My point about parking was not that people would chose this site over Bell Green if they had a large shop to do, but that there is parking for the Sydenham Road as a whole and it’s perfectly possible to do a small grocery shop as part of a wider ranging trip to the high street. That’s certainly how I have used that store in the past,

That’s not to say there wouldn’t be a better use for the site now. But the history of the site is being somewhat misrepresented as continually failing.

Do any of our commercial property gurus know if the site has been advertised as available? I assume the administrators of Budgens will want to dispose of the property portfolio quickly, but are there likely to be any complications?

The planning committee will make a decision on this proposal on Thursday evening. The planning department are recommending granting permission. You can read the planning department report at http://councilmeetings.lewisham.gov.uk/documents/s53738/Sydenham%20Gas%20Holder%20Station%20SE26%20Committee%20Report.pdf

6.24 On balance, officers consider that when material considerations such as potential regeneration benefits including significant employment benefits arising from a future redevelopment of the gasworks site are taken into account, they may be considered to outweigh any potential harm to heritage assets associated with the demolition of the two gasholders

6.61 Subsequently, the test demonstrates that there are no appropriate sites available for the subject application. All of the sites identified in Sydenham and Forest Hill fall below the 0.9ha threshold, and therefore would be unable to meet Aldl’s store operational and market requirements.

6.65 It is also considered that Sydenham and Forest Hill town centres would be ‘acceptable’, with diversion of 2.6% and 0.2% respectively

Plus £85k investment to help manage traffic around Bell Green.

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.

@Michael - three points:

3.5 Ten dedicated parking bays for Livesey Hall would be provided to the western side of the
Aldi store. A new garden area would also be formed for Livesey Hall directly to the south
of the Hall.

I recall there being twenty plus spaces allocated in the proposal at the consultation phase. This reduction is significant.

4.11 The Forest Hill Society object to the proposal on grounds including historic context; traffic management; and impact on local high streets.

So FHS did object on historic context grounds.

6.28 The current condition of the application site is neither welcoming or conducive to the public use of the already developed areas of the gasworks site. The site is desolate, characterised by a scaffolding yard; a hardstand area for motorcycle training; an overgrown bowling green that has been unused for many years, unsightly galvanised steel fencing around the gasholders; and overgrown hardstand areas for which their only function is to provide access for SGN workers. It may therefore be argued that the site itself is detrimental to the eastern setting of Livesey Hall, and that the redevelopment as proposed would provide an opportunity to enhance the appearance of the site, and its relationship with Livesey Hall as a listed building.

A more precise and realistic definition of the detrimental impact on the historic setting.

Is there any detail? Perry Rise really should not be burdened with more traffic.

The £84k is contributed by the developer to fund the ‘SCOOT’ (Split Cycle and Offset Optimisation Technique, in case that wasn’t immediately obvious ) traffic management system. As far as I can tell from a brief read, this is a system that ‘optimises traffic signal settings to reduce vehicle delays and stops’

These are the junctions that will benefit from ‘SCOOT’ and how much it costs to implement at each one:
Stanton Way - £14,519.80
Bell Green - £13,312.44
Perry Rise - £10,238.82
Kangley Bridge Road - £ 27,527.87
Worsley Bridge Road - £ 18,527.30

I was disappointed there wasn’t more detail about pedestrian access or how they would encourage more public transport use. The focus really seems to be on car parking spaces.

Agreed, pedestrian access to the site is not great right now (side-step the rubbish, dodge a crow, try and find a good place to cross…). I live a few minutes away, as do a lot of other people, why would we want to drive there?

Often walk to the retail park, Sainsbury’s and SD. Never had an issue just press buttons wait for a green man hey presto!

There aren’t the handy buttons to press on the bit I was thinking about…
Walk in past the gasholders, try to cross entrance to retail park - not a great corner if you’re going straight ahead (and coming the other way cars don’t see you), plus the only way to walk in to the retail park at that end is straight across the car park. Or walk in past Sports Direct, no pedestrian crossing at the roundabout.

Today is the day for the decision from Lewisham Planning Committee C.
I think it will be an interesting discussion and will probably pop along to hear what happens.

Rejected on the grounds that it would have a detrimental impact on:

1. A nationally listed building
2. Levels of traffic above capacity and increase in rat-running
3. levels of pollution from vehicles on roads above acceptable limits
4. Contrary to retrictions on the amount of retail at bell green as specified in a planning inquiry and included in the core planning strategy for lewisham. And a detrimental impact on retail on high streets (not sure if that last bit will be stated explicitly)

The committee rejected the application unanimously.

Thank you for the very prompt update Michael.

I think both of us (and many others) could be entangled in debate on this one for some time to come.

It is worth commenting that the gas holders were rejected by English Heritage for national listing back in April.

This was a close call. The officers had recommended acceptance ‘on balance’ but were ready to accept that there was a strong case the other way - which won out.

I expect that reference to the previous retail limits imposed by a planning inquiry should enable this rejection to be upheld if it were to go to the planning inspector on appeal.

What a shame so we have some iron structures thst serve no purpose and if the planning committe really believe they can save the high street, just goes to show how out of touch they are. Online shopping is going to hit record levels small shops unfortunately cannot compete with national chains save for a few specialists that will persist for a time. I am just being a realist time will tell.

Do not say this out loud to any one especially SGN.

Lewisham officers commented on the local listing paper that they could nor recommend removing a “permitted development” entitlement from SGN which in normal circumstances would mean that SGN could in the course of normal operation, demolish redundant structures…

Officers reported this could potentially mean it would set precedent for other property owners to call for compensation is similar circumstances. Not least because there are no funds to compensate SGN to refrain from executing their permitted development right to demolish the frames of the gas holder.

The local listing does not prevent SGN from exercising their right to demolish.

Interestingly as I said earlier a more precise and realistic definition of the detrimental impact on the historic setting is defined by officers at 6.28 in their report:

6.28 The current condition of the application site is neither welcoming or conducive to the public use of the already developed areas of the gasworks site. The site is desolate, characterised by a scaffolding yard; a hardstand area for motorcycle training; an overgrown bowling green that has been unused for many years, unsightly galvanised steel fencing around the gasholders; and overgrown hardstand areas for which their only function is to provide access for SGN workers. It may therefore be argued that the site itself is detrimental to the eastern setting of Livesey Hall, and that the redevelopment as proposed would provide an opportunity to enhance the appearance of the site, and its relationship with Livesey Hall as a listed building.

Good. Who needs another corrugated supermarket? Less traffic, less focus away from independent businesses, some cool looking iron things stay.

Not to mention the retention of a desolate site, characterised by a pile of post industrial cast iron scrap (not wanted by Heritage England - even for spares), a scaffolding yard; a hardstand area for motorcycle training; an overgrown bowling green that has been unused for many years, unsightly galvanised steel fencing around the gasholders; and overgrown hardstand areas for which their only function is to provide access for SGN workers and is a rubbish strewn rat infested hazard.

Sweet. The rats are big - historic tour parties will be interesting. Does anyone know how high they can jump ?

Has this been said before ?

James - could not agree more.

We are clearly on the same thread about roads.

My partner doesn’t want an Aldi - the site should have an Asda or Waitrose presence in her view.

Love your proposal on control and enforcement - perhaps you can enlarge on where this resource will be obtained and who will finance it.

I know, I know the devil’s in the detail.

Here’s what SE23.lifers most wanted to see: [Poll] New development in Bell Green - what would you prefer?

James

We live on this same patch.

When the Livesey has a function there are no spaces for drop-offs or to park cars to be had, in a significant radius around the hall, frequently for several hours at a time.

So as I said you and I are on the same thread about roads…

Vermin is not the responsibility of the LA here - I have tried in the past - it is private industrial and retail property and the LA refer all infestation issues to the owners.

The listed building issues are confined strictly to the hall and interestingly the perimeter wall (which is present only on three sides).and there are no mechanisms to police or enforce remedial action. As you live locally you will be aware of the wider impact of rubbish from the drive-thru - we get it on Perry Hill. Despite several campaigns and promises from the operator there is little impact on the rubbish levels either in its vicinity or on adjacent streets… This detritus is a significant contributor to the vermin problem.

I commend your view that the council will address issues in their own report. There is no driver for them to do so and no obligation on the council to take any such action.

650 people apparently signed the petition to retain these redundant structures supported by local councilors in a highly publicised presentation to the council. None of my neighbours were approached to add their signatures or express a contrary view, as indeed, we were not. No-one asked any of the important questions before signing it.

An FIO request may be required to obtain sight of it and to examine the validity and geographic distribution of signatories.

No clear winners there or should that be either or both.

No worries que serra, serra

Disappointing!! Wether you are fir or against this site will just sit there for the next few years with nothing happening, hope Aldi will move to former budgens on the high street now to keep syd soc high street revival on track​:smile:

Interesting. In Which? Magazine’s annual review Waitrose is ranked #1. Then M&S and in 3rd is Aldi tied with Lidl. Asda came bottom of the league this year.

If the heritage value of the site is a significant consideration as to why planning permission was not granted, I wonder if there’s scope for developing the gas holders similarly to how they are being reused in King’s Cross. I think aesthetically this is quite pleasing. Obviously would have to be residential, although I suppose a small supermarket on the ground level could work.

I believe the reasons are two fold, one the cost of decontamination of the ground, this being uneconomic due to the possible selling price of the resulting properties. The Kings Cross properties sell for upwards of 3/4 million which probably covers the development costs. This is unlikley to be the case in Sydenham.

Our faint hope lay in the potential for compromise in two significant points.

Whichever way the development went - the provision of additional parking to the rear of Livesey Hall for the exclusive use of their patrons is important. Whether that is 10,15 or 20 spaces, these spaces will ease parking and set down pressure on the streets around the hall on event days. For the meantime this will not happen.

Additionally to place double yellow lines all the way from the Selworthy Road/Perry Hill junction on the same side as the hall to the traffic lights at Perry Rise/Perry Hill junction and make this a seven day 24 hour no parking area with set down provision for the two homes affected by it. This would have the benefit of maximising the flow of two lanes of traffic for the entire distance (some 230 metres approx) from that junction to the lights.

Naturally the presence of the Bus Stop will mean occasional delays but the main impact will be that, particularly on Sundays when everyone believes parking restriction are not in play and bumper to bumper parking is the norm, there is a real choke point until you get to within approx 25 metres of the traffic lights.This compounds greatly the tail-back effect.

If this improvement can be implemented perhaps in conjunction with the SCOOT proposal the improvement for Perry Hill and Perry Rise could be significant.

As the development has been rejected, TfL/LB Lewisham would have to fund both this and the SCOOT proposal.

These concerns are substantially more relevant to those of us who dwell in the vicinity of the hall than the retention of the unloved pile behind it.

Perhaps we could lobby our ward councillors about those traffic suggestions? I think they’re a good idea!

Seriously !!! . Lewisham Planning needs changes, drastic changes. All officers out, new officers in with fresh heads and realistic modern veiw of life. It is not ok to take down a pile of scrap but ok to take green space away from residents.

Do they have contact details where i can complain to?? Does anyone know them , pls share. It is absolutely absurd!!

Morden? A little too realistic, perhaps?

I changed the incorrect word, thank you for pointing out.

Before you call for the sacking of the entire planning department (sorry too late) you might want to consider that they backed the scheme on balance. It was locally elected councillors who voted to reject the application for valid planning reasons. Having local councillors making these decisions ensures that the views of the community, as well as developers, can be heard - something that you might welcome whem it comes to your own backyard.

But if you feel that somebody needs to be fired over the decision then you should consider voting against the members of planning committee C rather than the planning officers.

Personally i think that on balance they made the correct decision, but the applicant can always appeal to the planning inspector if they feel that the councillors were wrong in upholding the restriction on retail imposed at the last planning inquiry. Had this been an application for new housing on this site then a different decison might have been achieved.

Michael

Concur wholly on your view that the officers backed the scheme - but then officers have backed every aspect of the schemes proposed for each phase of development of this large site.

I would question however that members voted to reject the application for valid reasons. Lets wait to see what they rejection notice says as you recommend in your earlier post.

Additionally SydSoc and FHSoc presented themselves to the authority as societies with a valid interest - about which we may agree to a limited degree - but neither party deemed it essential to seek to consult with the Bellingham ward residents.

Had they elected to do so, either or both parties could claim that their input was both balanced and representative of the whole community.

Which their submissions certainly were not.

And this rejection is a major botch.

Did Morden engage in the consultation too. Can you see the gas holders from there ?

Or was it the all-seeing eye of Mordor - the SydSoc bods all seem to think they have one.

I think rather than a point against the FHSoc and SydSoc, this whole situation suggests to me that Bellingham needs its own society that is successful and influential like FHSoc and SydSoc.

Without wishing to be facetious, I think you should seriously investigate starting one yourself if it doesn’t already exist.

In normal circumstances that point would be recognised and well made - and in some circles would be welcome.

Do not consider your comments facetious. But it is not in my make up to lead civic societies. Nor does the absence of a Bellingham body give licence to other societies to make representation without consultation. And without apology, both SydSoc and FHSoc, whilst having substantive and good qualities in many areas of their activities, neither society does at all well with planning issues and both have patchy records in this area within their own fiefdoms.

I occasionally attend Bellingham ward assemblies. It is observable that the geography of the ward and its demographic make up is a peculiar stitch up that forms a patchwork quilt. For example the ward boundary inexplicable transfers across Perry Hill at the Houston Road Junction, runs down to Lescombe Road before traversing back across to the other side of Perry HIll. And the ward is split geographically by the railway.

I would respectfully invite others to express a different view but I have no sense that there is a cohesive or cogent rational that would support such a formation. Much as one might conclude that the ward was not served well by this absence.

I have commented on the protocol of a councillor from one ward leading on an issue within the boundary of another. The interaction between Chris Best and Alan Hall is curious. Why was Chris Best leading on a report to cabinet on a Bellingham ward issue when we have three ward councillors perfectly capable of doing so - that is the job we elected them to do.

I would further question why our own ward councillor attached himself to a campaign and petition initiated outside our ward and apparently did not seek consultation that was evident with his own constituents.

I think the make-up and validity of the petition require examination - how many Bellingham residents knew of its existence and then indeed signed it.

I have lived and worked with local councils in three countries within the UK and I have rarely seen any example of a breach of protocol of this type that would have been tolerated across parties and certainly not within the same party. Perhaps this is now the modern way - but is is not inclusive and in this case not transparent.

Bellingham ward councillors know their constituents. I would invite them as I did some weeks ago - get in touch and let us know what proposal(s) you have to hand that will introduce effective measures that will re-instate benefits that have been killed off by this botch up. We see one another often - even a discussion over a beer would have made a difference.

A nationally listed building

Quote: ‘were rejected by English Heritage for national listing’ says it all.

Levels of traffic above capacity

Unjustified objection. The car park that has been build in front of the current retail park can host maximum amount of cars and obviousely was granted planning permission to be built which took into the consideration the traffic at the time when the retail shops are busy and the adjacent car park is completely full. Adding axtra retail shops attached to the same car park wont raise any traffic above the maximum capacity of the existing car park for which the permition have been garnted.

and increase in rat-running

It is already infested with rats and birds, and all their droppings, bringing retail will keep the area clean from pests as retail is highly regulated in terms of health and safety, cleanloness is one of their priorities. They have official checks and ‘under cover’ checks throughout the year. It is easy to enforce shops and penalise them for incomplience.

levels of pollution from vehicles on roads above acceptable limits

Unjustified in connection with car park maximum capacity and connexted traffic for which permition is granted.

Contrary to retrictions on the amount of retail at bell green as specified in a planning inquiry and included in the core planning strategy for lewisham. And a detrimental impact on retail on high streets (not sure if that last bit will be stated explicitly)

High Street retail will be dying anyway because of the online shoping and the greedy landlords who ask massive rent for the premises. About 10-12 years ago to rent space in Lewisham Shopping centre in the most remote corner with little people passing by was about 250,000 a year. Of course, howthe high street retail will survive and make profit??

Your final para is a very intelligent and astute interpretation of trends.

There can be no assumption of yet another increase in traffic destined for bricks and mortar retail outlets - killer point.

That isn’t what the planning assessment from the developer said. They expected an increase in traffic and the SCOOT system would have only partially limited the increase in traffic - beyond levels that were described as near capacity by the developer and highways department.

I attended a meeting at the Livesey Hall organised by the Sydenham Society and was surprised how many people were present, most of whom were residents from not too far away. There may have been much local support for the scheme but that doesn’t mean that there were not also a number of objectors living close by.

Chris Best did not present a report to the planning committee. She was hoping to speak as a local councillor with an interest in the scheme but she had lost her voice and it was actually Alan Hall (Bellingham councillor) who spoke as the local councillor and in opposition to the scheme.

I should also explain that rat-running is a reference to car using residential roads to bypass traffic queues rather than actual vermin. I can’t remember the figures but the highways authority had surveys that showed a massive increase in rat-running round Preistfield and Houston Roads since the building of B&Q, Next, etc (can’t remember whether it was 50% or 100% increase).

Thanks for the clarification on the presentation Michael - the council record must be in error.

Glad you got an invite - I did not get one to the council run event and officers have confirmed they did not comply with the normal notification procedures because of time pressure.

I had however attended the initial consultation meeting run by Kier and SGN at Livesey Hall and formally registered my interest there - but it wasn’t good enough to get me in on the council run session.

It may be the case that Kat gets the joke on rat-runs - but I am sure she can respond directly.

And I was responding to Kat’s observation of future trends - not the content of a submission in support of the application.

It strikes me that many of the positions on this are not necessarily binary and need drawing out separately. One could be in favour of developing the site but against the Aldi plan. One could also be happy with the rejection of the plans but not with the representation offered by councillors and the civic societies.

If there has been a failure in the public consultation process, that needs to be addressed, whether we support development at the site or not. It’s an important issue that maybe deserves its own debate.

Plainly put - and with sage-like wisdom.

Particularly on your binary comment - for the first time in all its development stages, I found myself supporting this application contrary to my positions on earlier phases.

But getting the parking sorted out around the local streets would be the final part of a long running jigsaw for which we have hoped a solution would emerge going all the way back to 1993.

Our household started out neutral on the gas-holders and Aldi. It has changed because of this misplaced desire to retain them at the cost of killing the local benefits.

Well put @RachaelDunlop.

There are several points here, all of which are significant and probably warrant their own topic.

Repliers - I’d recommend this tip: How to: Reply as a new linked topic (with optional quoting)

Unfortunately I did not(((. English is my second language and as much as it is easier for me to speak and think in English, unfortunately it is not as good as I would like it to be…to my shame. Colloquial English, idioms and jokes are probably my weakest part. If you see me writing smth funny and out of context, it is probably I missed smth when reading.

However, having said all above, the amount of pests the gas holder give home to is quite scary. I sit on the bus stop waiting for a bus sometimes and these big fat rats running a metre or so far are disgusting plus birds, their dropping, rubbish pulled out of bins by them… It is all unhygienic. Retail shops would have solved the problem partially.

Having read the rejection points, I find them very stupid and unjustified and people who made decisions based on that are seen as outdated miserable people at least.

‘Rat running’ in terms of cars, because of the traffic build-up, well… how many traffic lights are there?? One set where gas works are, another set at the ‘round about’ one set where Sainsbury’s petrol station and the road from double becomes single going under the bridge…of course there will be traffic. It is not the retail, it is the traffic light signal system, road system wrong and bridges are narrow, they need widening.

The problem now is retail has a no-no, the site is not suitable for housing. So the site will be left like it is now and we are in 21st century when 800mph trains are the reality. Those stupid decisions dont take us forward, they keep us in the past thus make us less attractive and competitive to the world.

Actually I don’t think I did get an invite to the meeting earlier this month (although as an objector I may have got a letter). I was aware of it from the Sydenham Society e-newsletter, however, I didn’t actually attend.

The meeting I was referring to was months ago organised by the Sydenham Society with a packed meeting full of people opposed to the plans. (I also attended the original meeting organised by Kier).

I did get a letter inviting me to the council meeting on Thursday (standard for all people who have written in objection and I posted details on this site for others to know about) and went along as I was intrigued to find out which way this application would go - it wasn’t an easy decision in my opinion - but planning applications do come down to a binary choice for councillors and all rejected the application.

In making these decisions the councillors take on a quasi-judicial role and must act according to local and national planning policy, and they are not meant to be swayed by local politics, strength of numbers, or any other factors. On this occasion I was pleased that they agreed with all the points of objection made by the Forest Hill Society.

In terms of suitability for housing, the site is no less suitable than the housing above Sports Direct. The ground is contaminated, but that doesn’t mean flats cannot be built, particularly above ground floor level. Some retail units can sensibly co-exist with housing above, but Kier made clear that their client (Aldi) did not wish for this to be the case, and that only residential would not be viable (which is surprising to me as I thought it was the best way to make money from land in London, but Kier understand the finances better than I do).

My hope remains that Aldi take the vacant site in Sydenham town centre and that a better mixed use (residential and non-residential) development could be built on the site of the gas holders, without impacting the historic context of the Livesey Hall and without adding to the decline of our high street - which I’m a little less keen to write-off than some proponents of this development.

It is interesting that despite the thinly veiled alternative suggestions there is an underlying objection to Aldi. I suggest if it was a Waitrose that was proposed the outcome would have been different.
Residential development where significant clean up of the site is required needs a high return, the Kings Cross flats as previously stated fetch a lot of money, I doubt flats inset in the gas holders in Bell Green would not acheive any where near 700k.

So the site will remain an eyesore, on road parking will persist and the resulting traffic delays will continue and the high street will decline. I wait to be proven wrong.

If it is the site where the co-op shop was, I dont put much hopes. There is Lidl not far from there, they are rivals and look very similar in presentation , quality and prices. Aldi will not make any money there, and they wont go next to each other.

Much as I love Waitrose, I still don’t want another supermarket on that site. I’d like to see a better thought out development, possibly including housing (although I agree it might be prohibitively expensive). I also want to see everyone taking better care of the existing site and not see rats!

I think you are right (although I wish you weren’t). The planning considerations would be exactly the same for an ugly warehouse containing Waitrose or M&S but, if I’m honest, I think there would be fewer objector to a shop that many people would see as making a positive contribution to the area (despite the traffic, pollution, and other issues).

I would like to think that I (and the Forest Hill Society) would have taken exactly the same approach to the planning matters if it were a Waitrose rather than Aldi. However, I would have been much more unpopular for using the same arguments against Waitrose than against Aldi. But none of this speculation suggests that the planning decision was wrong.

The problem is that without a financial incentive the site will continue to deteriorate, the council will not spend any money on it as they probably do not have any budget.

It would be exciting for the objectors/supporters for retention of the Gas holders to come up with the cash. Perhaps the societies can present something? Long held belief that you should never present a problem unless you have a solution.

Kat

Your written English comes across clearly.

I would apologise if I have contributed to any embarrassment and ask you to accept my assurance this was not my intention. The command of colloquial English, idioms and jokes is a life-long venture especially given the regional nature of many of their variations.

I am a Scot and we have a whole bank of them that are almost entirely indecipherable to the rest of the UK and I know of at least one NornIrn member on here who could provide a real wealth from that part of the country too.

Good luck with it.

No, not at all ))). It is all good, the second language is always a lifetime learning and funny moments are part of the proccess which are very enjoyable. It is all ok)))

Michael

It flies in the face of solid recommendations from officers.

It is contrary.

It is a major botch up.

I have commented elsewhere on the patchy performance by FHSoc on these type of matters on their own area.

Commenting on our area without consultation of ward members is not only unrepresentative but has also damaged the prospect of local benefits immeasurably.

Phrases like unrepresentative, intrusive, invasive and non-transparent come to the fore.

For @kat.standlake.point.

Here is a good one to start with.

Forest Hill Society planning people have more front than Sainsbury’s.

Explanation (if required) on request.

I do feel pity that the opportunity for the site development has been missed. And the rejection will make it harder now for the future retail developement on the site because it has already had a no-no and a pile of rubbish will be there for anothet donkey years. What is the most infuriating is the Council saves the pile of crap, dirty, filthy, ugly, source of pests and takes away green recreational space from residents, people like us and many more others (the resident of the single standing house on our estate has received a letter from the council informing him that he has to give back his house, obviousely they are clearing site for their planned lark, the guy lived there for 30-40 years. Now the council saves the crap but willing to destroy the green recreational area people use and enjoy. HOW IS THAT FAIR??! If those council people decide to build on our estate, they will hear a lot of s*** from us and all of that will be recorded and go public definitely, without compromise.

And here is an image that is appearing on other forums and in the News Shopper today.

image736×483 163 KB

I can recognise some of the personnel in it. Additionally I can identify their respective roles in campaigning for this rejection.

But I do need a little more help, can anyone advise on how many are residents of Bellingham Ward.

Can only find one presence in the pic who co-incidentally is a member on here @pattrembath.

Being of a balanced outlook I could not possibly comment on whether there is a mis-placed air of triumphalism present or not in the image. Could I be wrong ?

This report outstrips every hyperbole possible.

It mis-reports that Kier’s have been prevented from knocking the gas holders down and that the groups’ members also wanted to protect the Livesey Memorial Hall - inaccurate and fantasy reporting of the worst kind. The Livesey Hall has never been under threat by any phase of t he re-development of this large site.

https://www.londonnewsonline.co.uk/people-power-saves-gas-holders/

It reports that “Historian David Stack, who had a parent and a great-grandparent who worked at the gas works, was another resident who fought to protect them.” It is however silent on where David resides.

They want housing development, which is admirable given the shortage of suitable housing so lets wait and see, time will tell.

Admirable aspiration.

Track record in Lewisham is however, to start with developers offering the statutory minimum proportion of social housing, secure planning consent, commence construction phase and somewhere in-between halt construction.

They then re-present to Lewisham that their original business case is not sustainable and they cannot afford to build the socially affordable element. They often then zero that proportion or place it at levels as to render it meaningless.

And invite Lewisham to grant permission to re-commence with the reduced proportion of sociably affordable housing.

Time after time.

The oft quoted and aspirational King’s Cross model has housing priced at three quarters of a million pounds per dwelling. These prices reflect the complexity of building within a gasometer framework. But affordable housing it does not make.

Naturally our elected members may have a funding source that we, as yet, do know nothing about and that this funding is available to the next potential developer.

As you say time will tell.

You echo my thoughts, perhaps in 12 months time this post can be reignited with either a positive or negative outcome to report.

PUBLICATION OF DECISION NOTICE 28 November 2017

http://planning.lewisham.gov.uk/online-applications/files/989B098BC6DA46179B4E07972D5CB414/pdf/DC_17_100680-Decision_Notice-631256.pdf

An extract states:

“On this particular application,pre-application advice was sought and advice was given by officers. These discussions involved the submission of details to demonstrate the mitigation of any adverse impacts of the development upon the listed Livesey Hall and wider area, and led to the submission of a planning application.”

On examination of this entire thread it would appear that this post places me as the most prolific poster by a margin of one.

Interestingly it was on this thread that I made one of my my first posts on SE23.life

I will make every effort to hawd ma wheesht for a while.

Until the next phase of battle.

Or, as we say in Belfast, wind yer neck in.

Probably a good time to draw breath and wait for the next planning application to be made.

You don’t have to reside in a ward to be affected be developments in that ward, particularly a densely populated area like Lewisham where the geographical area of wards is quite small; there are many residents just outside the boundary line who will be affected by this. Also, by that logic, does it mean only those resident in the Forest Hill Ward are allowed to input into the Dartmouth Road redevelopment, for example?

Everybody should be able to comment, the only criteria should be common sense sadly something missing in general.
However, as previously stated time will tell, the site in question has been an eyesore for the last 5 years to my knowledge I am sure others will testify as to the exact duration so we just have to be patient.

New funding update which is very relevant is published in News Shopper today.

A £20 million grant has been awarded to Lewisham Council by the Government to build new homes in Catford and Lewisham town centres.

The grant appears to be specific to town centre sites of which and of course Bell Green unfortunately is not one. So new funding may have been on the horizon at decision time but does not apply to this site.