Say 'No' to further retail at Bell Green

[stuart]

Surely not another supermarket in this area, Sainsbury's is more that adequate.

That's a hypermarket which was the format Sainsbury's and the other three (Asda, Morrisons & Tesco) came to dominate and then screw the market.

Which led to emergence of Lidl & Aldi beneath (and Waitrose above) to challenge the oligarchy with smaller supermarkets - and they have succeeded. Which is why our local Lidl is often rammed. So I do think Sainsburys do need a bit of competition down in Bell Green. And its breaking the hypermarket model which imho is a good thing for the urban environment.

The problem is retail isn't really into iconic architecture (Selfridges Birmingham being a rare counter example) so we will get the same bland house style of whoever lands on the site. While it would might have been interesting to have incorporated the iron framework I really don't see it as a dealbreaker. I would rather be campaigning to 'green' those car parks! Starting with a modest parking charge.

Stuart

[Sydenham]

I doubt anything will be done about the car park until the Bakerloo line extension plans are finalised. Isn't the lower sydenham station going to be relocated to more central Bell Green?

[SydenhamOwl]

I doubt anything will be done about the car park until the Bakerloo line extension plans are finalised. Isn't the lower sydenham station going to be relocated to more central Bell Green?

Is that even happening? I thought extenstion to Lewisham was the only potential at the moment with a possibility to extend further?

[owlwise]

http://www.newsshopper.co.uk/news/lewis ... d_an_Aldi/

[JayB]

Regarding the newsshopper article that owlwise helpfully posted, i do not understand this turn of events. First, at the meetings held to discuss the issue odf Aldi many local residents said their main concern was traffic pollution and not saviing the gas holders; that they were happy to see residential development or other forms of development replace the gas holders rather than retail. The consultations and other petitions that we were invited to respond to were all closed long ago.
How come this very public "handing in " (we have email in Bell Green) takes place with a seemingly contrary opinion (which of course people are entitled ot express in the same way as everyone else- but not in my view ithrough an organisation whose name implies it is representative of Sydenham and well after the dead lines for replying to the council etc appear to have passed.? The Forest Hill society published their full response to this issue on their forum months ago.

No wonder Sydenham is the land that time forgot! This thread will still be going in10 years time if the rest of this forum is anything to go by. Will they, won't they...

[Eagle]

I agree far too much devolpement at Bell Green , especially the lovely old Dylon Building.

Does anyone know if they are still manufacturing in UK , or has yet another British company outsourced ?????????????????

[perryman]

The petition calls for the gasholders to be listed and the land around the them to be turned into residential units instead of retail space.

I wouldn't have thought any of the land on the site of the old gasworks will be fit for normal residential use for thousands of years.

[RJM]

I've had a response to my comment on the planning application (finally!). There's a drop in at the Civic Suite next week about it - if anyone else has full details to hand please post them, I've brilliantly left them at home and am posting this from work, otherwise I'll put them up when I get home (late-ish) tonight.

[ALIB]

The petition calls for the gasholders to be listed and the land around the them to be turned into residential units instead of retail space.

I wouldn't have thought any of the land on the site of the old gasworks will be fit for normal residential use for thousands of years.

Not true really. You can decontaminate virtually any site these days. I worked on the decontamination of the Kingston gas holders in the 1990's/2000's. I think that is now a Sainsbury's (ironically retail), but you get the point.
Other gas sites I've worked on have been re-used for residential.
And given the shortage of housing and the excellent public transport links from Bell Green, you would hope residential would be the preferred option.
Unfortunately, money is going to be the winner for future development.

[syenhamboy]

I say yes to more shops. More businesses more jobs and make Sydenham a place to come and stay for the day.

[RJM]

I say yes to more shops. More businesses more jobs and make Sydenham a place to come and stay for the day.

I don't think anyone comes to an Aldi for a day out, do they?

I couldn't make the planning drop in session, but my husband went instead. There were reps from the development company, planning officials and local councillors. Apparently traffic will be managed through smart traffic lights to stop congestion, which will cover all round the site and the roads feeding in to it. It was acknowledged that no holistic view has ever been taken of the whole site - which is obvious if you're a pedestrian trying to get to Sainsbury's - although I'm not sure that this development is going to help with that. One of our other concerns was the level of litter and vermin generated by McDonalds and therefore worsened by additional food outlets, apparently McD's are meant to be responsible for litter clearing beyond just their own site so environment health will go down and have a look.

Much as I dislike this development as unnecessary, I suspect it will go ahead nonetheless. That's not how planning decisions are made! The Planning Committee meeting is 23rd November, there will be time for the developers to talk and then for objectors to the proposal, I don't know who those will be. The public can attend planning committee meetings.

[Likelife]

I'd rather King's Cross style homes but, this is Lower Sydenham and it all comes down to costs. King's Cross style homes won't be "affordable" because of the cost of construction/decontamination which then raises its own issues. I see there is already a proposed development at Bell Green with zero affordable housing. I'm not too sold on the idea of Aldi and other retail without any housing, a mix of both would be best.

Then there is the traffic problem. Traffic in Lower Sydenham needs to be sorted. Personally, I always think big, and wouldn't have a problem with axing the one-way system, bulldozing the industrial building, widening Hayes Line bridge, adding some greenery and totally rebuilding the road layout from scratch. But I can't see Lewisham Council/TfL/Network Rail having the will to do it.

[prince]

I'd rather King's Cross style homes but, this is Lower Sydenham and it all comes down to costs. King's Cross style homes won't be "affordable" because of the cost of construction/decontamination which then raises its own issues. I see there is already a proposed development at Bell Green with zero affordable housing. I'm not too sold on the idea of Aldi and other retail without any housing, a mix of both would be best.

Then there is the traffic problem. Traffic in Lower Sydenham needs to be sorted. Personally, I always think big, and wouldn't have a problem with axing the one-way system, bulldozing the industrial building, widening Hayes Line bridge, adding some greenery and totally rebuilding the road layout from scratch. But I can't see Lewisham Council/TfL/Network Rail having the will to do it.

It's a nice idea to have residential in the gas holders and I agree it works in Kingscross. However Sydenham is substantially different to Kings Cross and I completely agree with you Likelife. Low land values, the cost of decontamination, section 106/cil costs would make residential use in the gas holders here completely unviable.

[syd]

I went to Bell Green yesterday and although these developments are my least favourite place on earth I think about the jobs and the housing. That was derelict space for decades.

If I changed on thing I'd force sports direct to cover those breeze blocks. It looks cheap and nasty.

[JayB]

I went to Bell Green yesterday and although these developments are my least favourite place on earth I think about the jobs and the housing. That was derelict space for decades.

If I changed on thing I'd force sports direct to cover those breeze blocks. It looks cheap and nasty.

Yes but sadly those of us who live here have to put up with it everyday! I totally agree about the eyesore that is Sports Direct ,But the entire place is cheap and nasty. It is the epitome of naff, and could have easily been less so with some better planning and enforcement. So, if they can get away with this now, why not continue?

Aside from substantial rethinking of the traffic management in the area , if it can be called that, and pedestrian access which is so obviously neglected, the council need to enforce the clause that requires McDonalds in particular but also Sainsburys as well to clean up the mess their customers, contractors and their own operations leave- check out inside Sainsburys depot and you will soon see why so much litter blows around the site. I would hope the rats that this litter attracts has also been assigned to the retailers to deal with.

The council have no excuse on this as all the costs can be passed onto the retailers just like at any other retail development. You wouldn't expect to walk into the estate at Canary Wharf or a Westfield and find it covered in litter with rats running around would you? If there was drug taking paraphernalia left on site in any other shopping development you wouldn't expect them to say "that's nothing to do with us, it's the locals" It is not that their customers are necessarily more considerate but rather that the retailers are required to pay to keep these places up to standard..

It is incredible it now emerges that litter management was apparently always in the leases as residents have been complaining about the litter for some time- check out all the laughing gas canisters opposite sainsburys car park by the flats. Is it really beyond the wit of the council to enforce a simple contractual obligation? If they are checking it out now why haven't they done so before? Are the photos they have been sent not of good enough quality???Perhaps they would do better to subcontract to a site manager permanently before moving forward at all..

[ALIB]

Remedial works to leave a gasworks fit for residential aren't cheap. But prices are getting more competitive and there are Government/Council monies available to bring land back into use.
Any business is in effect fighting over the consumer £1 in their pocket. That £1 can only go to one shop.

At the moment there is a great need for affordable housing in the UK. More housing = more potential customers

But business use is still the most saleable, in terms of revenue, even with really expensive housing.

Probably the answer lies in some sort of (Local/National) Government intervention, but that won't happen. Affordable housing just doesn't make enough money, compared to retail or high-value residential

[JayB]

Well, well, well- it's a miracle! I walked around the retail park yesterday and there was hardly any rubbish left on site for the first time in a few years. Also all the overgrown planting has been cut back and the beds had been cleared of most of the weeds- leaving bare bark chippings as the dead plants were never replaced. Such convenient timing, but it would be great if the council could keep up the pressure on the site to manage it all year round rather than just for show at this particular time. Fingers crossed........

[simon]

http://www.eastlondonlines.co.uk/2017/1 ... -campaign/

[JayB]

http://www.eastlondonlines.co.uk/2017/1 ... -campaign/

The article of Simon's link has confused a lot of us. This is not the same thing at all as English Heritage listing and i am not sure what benefits it conveys in reality.I think it just means they have to think about it before the y demolish them! In the papers circulated from the council for the final meeting on the subject no one from the council departments are objecting to any of the development.

Interestingly, they acknowledge the poor public transport in our area and the road congestion.They note teh y are near capacity and that Southend Lane, Perry Rise and Perry Hill are already at capacity. (strangely all complaints that are part of our daily experience but various people on this forum have dismissed over time). Interesting the stats don't support their opinions to such a degree.

However, the councill department says pollution and congestion caused by all the thousands of extra journeys will be off-set to the point of neutrality by new "intelligent" traffic light systems the developers will have to pay for. (£83k) The maths, unsurprisingly perhaps, is not given but I find this convenient equation of gram per gram offset as doubtful as it is unsubstantiated in their responses. Please does anyone who has a background in planning know the algorhy
ithms that are used to calculate NOX, CO2 and particulate emmissions as this seemingly back of the fag packet calculation is very worrying if it is an indicator of how these crucial concerns are judged.
Objectors can now appoint one spokesperson who wil lbe given 5 minutes at the meeting on Thurs 23 Nov (by invitation to people who wrote in about the issue only).

[syd]

Well, well, well- it's a miracle! I walked around the retail park yesterday and there was hardly any rubbish left on site for the first time in a few years. Also all the overgrown planting has been cut back and the beds had been cleared of most of the weeds- leaving bare bark chippings as the dead plants were never replaced. Such convenient timing, but it would be great if the council could keep up the pressure on the site to manage it all year round rather than just for show at this particular time. Fingers crossed........

Someone must be checking the forum. I say take pics next time!!