There was an extremely well attended Sydenham Society meeting with an additional session on this issue last night. The concerns about traffic pollution were raised time and time again.(There are schools directly on the areas of greatly increased road traffic).It is a shame no councillors from Perry Vale ward attended as the entire length of Perry Rise is now no more than a giant traffic queue at peak times, with traffic stretching from the lights at the retail park right back to Woolstone Road.This affects Catford And Forest Hill, it is far from just a Bellingham issue.
Also, is our only vision of jobs in the area Mac jobs or zero hour contracts at Sports Direct. I am not against development but there is so much other than retail to explore.Talk about setting our sights low....
I fear that the campaigns are not well co-ordinated though. Apparently, there is an official consultation to which we must respond by 17 April? Does anybody know where we acccess this or whom we email please-it does not bode well that the consultation process is so difficult to engage with!
Many thanks, it did not come up on a Lewisham council website search! I will see if i am allowed to post the link in a separate thread as a lot of people at the meeting this week did not know where to find it and it closes soon. .
With regard to the planning application, I have noticed that it states the site will produce no trade effluent. Trade effluent is the process of water going to waste to the sewers...so they are claiming that no water, be it hand washing, toilets or dishwasher, or whatever, will be discharged to the sewers from the three properties. To state that on a planning application is technically a false claim especially as the applicant must know there will be effluent produced.
Vaving no effluent would go a long way to securing planning permission, if overlooked or misunderstood by the planning officers.
The property owners will also have to obtain Trade Effluent Notices for their respective properties from their appointed water retailer (a bit it's the other utility industries, they can now choose who they get their water bills from) before they can discharge any effluent to waste. It is a legal requirement under the Water Industry Act 1991 and failure to comply will be met with a large fine.
Are there any other 'errors' that anyone can find in the documents?
My main concern is the effect of traffic, yet the supposed supporting documents gloss over the subject. During peak times the place is often a nightmare.
.