Say 'No' to further retail at Bell Green

[JayB]

No Syd, i don't hink it is this forum- it's that the council say in their response to the objections to the development that they acknowledge there is a problem with litter that their officers will visit the site- and hey presto, it's cleaned up! As i say this should have bee nenforced a long time ago. I have a feeling things wil lbe as bad as ever within a few weeks of the new Aldi opening.Great idea to post photos of it as it reoccurs though, or do you think that will be seen as talking the stunning beauty of Bell Green down

[TredownMan]

.

[parker]

Aldi can have the old Co-op/Budgens unit or bugger off out of Sydenham. Simples

[maestro]

Decision due today.

http://www.newsshopper.co.uk/news/15674 ... h_an_Aldi/

[stuart]

Aldi can have the old Co-op/Budgens unit or bugger off out of Sydenham. Simples

Its too small for the current Aldi format. Who are you to rudely deny the rest of us a choice of where we shop?

Stuart

[parker]

Aldi can have the old Co-op/Budgens unit or bugger off out of Sydenham. Simples

Its too small for the current Aldi format. Who are you to rudely deny the rest of us a choice of where we shop?

Stuart

Who said anything about denying anyone an Aldi in Sydenham? Because it wasn’t me. They should use what’s already empty and locate themselves in the high street in a similar set up to their metro format store in Tooting Broadway. Aldi’s aren’t generally that big, is it really that unrealistic a suggestion of them having the old Co-op instead?

[Sapient Syd]

Aldi can have the old Co-op/Budgens unit or bugger off out of Sydenham. Simples

Its too small for the current Aldi format. Who are you to rudely deny the rest of us a choice of where we shop?

Stuart

Who said anything about denying anyone an Aldi in Sydenham? Because it wasn’t me. They should use what’s already empty and locate themselves in the high street in a similar set up to their metro format store in Tooting Broadway. Aldi’s aren’t generally that big, is it really that unrealistic a suggestion of them having the old Co-op instead?

Aldi have a multi size approach to opening new stores Their expansion strategy includes :-

High Street store (units of minimum 8,000 sqft with or without parking)

• Prominent London high street locations within dense population

• Heavy pedestrian footfall immediately outside retail unit

• Recognised high street locations

• Prominent road frontage visibility

• Close proximity to local transport links (tube stations, railway stations, bus routes)


https://www.aldi.co.uk/about-aldi/prope ... ndon-south

[Wilhelm]

Just back from tonight's planning meeting at the town hall. Application refused on four counts.

[Pat Trembath]

Reasons given were (my words - we will have to wait till the refusal letter is sent out):

1) Diminution of an important Heritage Asset site which contains 3 Grade 2 listed 'buildings' (Livesey Hall, the War Memorial and the brick wall fronting Perry Hill), if the gasholders were demolished to be replaced by a supermarket.

2) Disregard of Lewisham's own Core Strategy if further retail of the size planned was to be built on this site.

3) increased traffic. It was acknowledged that there had been a considerable increase of traffic in the area since the previous 2011 permission was granted and subsequently built. This has resulted in rat runs. Further retail will exacerbate this especially as nowadays satnavs assist in finding these rat runs.

4) Air Quality.

[TredownMan]

Does this decision preclude the gas holders from being replaced with housing at a later date?

[Pat Trembath]

The gasholders have been locally listed by Lewisham, which acknowledges their importance to the heritage setting of the Livesey Hall and the other grade 2 structures.

It is not unknown for housing to be built inside gasholders - examples immediately come to mind are at Kings Cross and in Dublin.

The site is owned by SGN and we must wait to see what they plan to do following this decision.

[TredownMan]

Would housing built inside a gasholder be affordable? That Kings Cross scheme was terribly expensive - reflecting its prime location and in part no doubt to the engineering challenge. Who is going to attempt such an expensive scheme in Bell Green?

Did the Sydenham Society or the Council conduct any investigation as to whether these ageing steel gasholders were even suitable for conversion into housing? If not, why not?

Let's be honest: this decision is going to exclude a brownfield site from being used as housing stock, which is unfortunate given the growing lists of young London workers looking for housing.

[Larky]

Well said Tredownman !

Whilst I believe we should keep some old buildings, some we have to let go off, the gas holders are ones we should let go off

[RJM]

W
Let's be honest: this decision is going to exclude a brownfield site from being used as housing stock, which is unfortunate given the growing lists of young London workers looking for housing.

I absolutely agree that we need more (affordable) housing stock, but I don't think this particular decision has anything to do with that - it was a retail development with no housing.

I hope SGN come up with something useful for the site, I agree with the decision to reject it and the reasons behind it, but wouldn't be averse to a better designed development that took much of it into consideration. I definitely don't want to see the gasholders rotting for the next twenty years and then being demolished for badly designed shops anyway.

[owlwise]

Great news that the gas holders have been saved!!

[stuart]

Great news that the gas holders have been saved!!

I don't think it works like that. Here are some words from: http://heritagehelp.org.uk/planning/local-listing

"Locally listed buildings do not enjoy the levels of statutory protection afforded to nationally-listed buildings. However, local listing means that the interest of the building will be at least considered during the planning process. The effect of an application on a non-designated heritage asset is a material consideration when deciding planning applications, and local listing strengthens the case for retention of a historic building."

Hence, I assume it is likely to be used by Lewisham to refuse planning permission but when it inevitably goes to appeal it will be considered solely on the merits of the case. I can't help thinking that many of those supporting the petition would have been, had they lived 130 years ago, be objecting to these 'monstrosities' being built on our wonderful watercress meadows.

But hey-ho the real monstrosity round there is the gyratory polluting the school and damaging our children.

Stuart

[broken_shaman]

Meanwhile... over in Oval, plans are in to build housing inside the (listed) gas holders, as was done in King's Cross.

http://www.ovalgasworks.co.uk/

[GillM]

Oh is it just me....or is that horrible! Would be like living in a prison.

[TredownMan]

Building flats inside an existing gasholder is extremely challenging, and correspondingly expensive, and probably only viable because these flats will have views of the Oval that means people will be willing to pay £1m+ for them. (Ditto those next to Google's HQ).

Is that really the case in Bell Green?

No further listing of the gas holders should take place until a study is done demonstrating whether such a conversion is technically possible or economically viable.

If not, pull them down and use the land for the housing we need.

[The Clown]

....but much better looking than the flats recently built next to Sainsbury’s....Also pigeon proof (actually mostly crows that have replaced starlings at Bell Green)

A gym, cinema or music venue / other event space would be great.
I would take public transport then, so I could have a glass of something...

I would rather see another supermarket fill the co-op space and be a bit more ambitious here with mixing up the leisure interests.
Either that or something more niche.

If we are always going to come back to parking then there is a bit of a challenge either way.
Residential will just park in Sainsbury’s if you don’t allocate to some degree. Although more people I know are stepping away from vehicle ownership these days, the shift hasn’t happened in any measureable way yet - The lifecycle of such an investment is too long and once people have a kids, if they can afford to, they drive them around.

Either way, this application clearly hasn’t worked, so no harm in keeping the ideas coming and the debate going.

I just hope it ends up aesthetically pleasing and well finished either way.