Toys R Us

[Mayowthorpe]

It looks like we will have another empty retail outlet following today’s news.

A shame, as I found it a useful store.

Hopefully, we are able to attract a new tenant without too many hassles from the Council or Sydenham Society.

[Pat Trembath]

At the risk of another side-swipe, I cannot imagine why anyone would think the Sydenham Society would object to an empty retail warehouse on the Bell Green out of town park being re-occupied, or why the council would either for that matter.

I think there may be a problem with it being re-occupied, but that is down to the increase in on-line shopping it would appear from last night's news reports.

[TredownMan]

At the risk of another side-swipe, I cannot imagine why anyone would think the Sydenham Society would object to an empty retail warehouse on the Bell Green out of town park being re-occupied, or why the council would either for that matter.

The reason people think things like that - however unjustly - is because the Sydenham Soc is opaque in its decision-making. We don't know its criteria for making submissions in the planning process, it doesn't consult, and it doesn't inform the community of when it's intervening or why. And so the only way to find out what it thinks about Toys R Us or any other development is to read the minutes of Lewisham Council planning committees...

[parker]

Aldi can stop pining over Sydenham now and open in this unit, or is this space not good enough for them neither? Like the suggestion of Aldi having the old Budgens/Co-op, the floors are probably the wrong shade of beige or something.

[Tim Lund]

The reason people think things like that - however unjustly - is because the Sydenham Soc is opaque in its decision-making. We don't know its criteria for making submissions in the planning process, it doesn't consult, and it doesn't inform the community of when it's intervening or why. And so the only way to find out what it thinks about Toys R Us or any other development is to read the minutes of Lewisham Council planning committees...

It wasn't always like that. If you look up Forum members, you will see the early posters were the then and now leading members of the Sydenham Society - though to see this it helps to know that some of these aliases are what might be considered sock puppets.



I can't remember now which particular application, where Annabel shared the SydSoc objection on this Forum, urging others to object too, drew so much flak that she resolved never to expose herself to such calumny again. I tried a search for it, and curiously enough found this post, on which thread I too am asking people to oppose a change of use application

Planning application for Money Shop at 59 Sydenham Road

TredownMan will probably be interested in the subsequent exchange on that thread between me and DickP - now moved away.

Understandable on a personal level, but I think this closing up was a mistake.

[JayB]

So, no one from Bell Green then Tim, nor Lower Sydenham. just sayin.

[Tim Lund]

So, no one from Bell Green then Tim, nor Lower Sydenham. just sayin.

Well, I think the objection Annabel published, and drew all the flak, was to do with some application in the Bell Green area. Those who took issue with her may well have been from there.

[JRW]

Unfortunately, I gather that Sainsbury's, who owned the land, ensured that these units were for non-food use only. This rules out Aldi, which explains their attempts to demolish the gasholders.

I think it would be interesting if the Syd Soc would consider a petition to Saintsbury's, asking to review their treatment of this site. For many years we have had to put up with a litter strewn wasteland, with boarded-up areas and pedestrian unfriendly spaces.

Saintsbury's are clearly land-banking with the ridiculously large carpark, which had ample room even on peak shopping times at Christmas. I think we could demonstrate that Saintsbury's has been a pretty poor neighbor, and needs to take responsibility for the poor state of the site.

[Sydenham]

Re: Sainsburys landbanking - perhaps they are awaiting the Bakerloo line extension if ever it gets this far. Then the land that is currently the car park would be more valuable than it is now.

[JRW]

Absolutely, that must be the reason. Financially it is a no-brainer for Sainsbury's, but given their high profile and social responsibility claims, I doubt whether they would like this to be publicised.

Given the pressure that government is beginning to exert on land banking, it might be possible to get them to listen to us. Personally, I am most interested in getting them to improve the environment of the current site; some new trees around the perimeter would really help with the road pollution. The derelict boarded up area has been an eyesore for well over a decade. Pedestrian access is currently abysmal, and litter blows around the site unchallenged.

The most important thing though is that they need to review their legal stranglehold on the permitted uses of other units, so a coherent plan can evolve to make Bell Green into a local asset.

[Pally]

The reason people think things like that - however unjustly - is because the Sydenham Soc is opaque in its decision-making. We don't know its criteria for making submissions in the planning process, it doesn't consult, and it doesn't inform the community of when it's intervening or why. And so the only way to find out what it thinks about Toys R Us or any other development is to read the minutes of Lewisham Council planning committees...

It wasn't always like that. If you look up Forum members, you will see the early posters were the then and now leading members of the Sydenham Society - though to see this it helps to know that some of these aliases are what might be considered sock puppets.



I can't remember now which particular application, where Annabel shared the SydSoc objection on this Forum, urging others to object too, drew so much flak that she resolved never to expose herself to such calumny again. I tried a search for it, and curiously enough found this post, on which thread I too am asking people to oppose a change of use application

Planning application for Money Shop at 59 Sydenham Road

TredownMan will probably be interested in the subsequent exchange on that thread between me and DickP - now moved away.

Understandable on a personal level, but I think this closing up was a mistake.

Finally and after querying many tyimes, I understand why the Sydenham Society doies not engage with this Forum ...I knew the negativity was part of it but thought that withdrawing was an unfortunate response. If the Sydenham Society Chair is unwilling to engage, then there is no way that other Committee members will! Pat occasionally posts helpfully, sometimes resulting in negativity and sometimes negativity is seen/created when it wasn't there. No idea which other posters are Sydenham Society members apart from Ben.
However, if the Sydenham Society won't engage with the Forum, that does not preclude it being more open in its dealings/applications etc on its own website - and links to that information could easily be posted by Forum members so inclined.
So the unwillingness to enage on here (which may well be at least understandable, even if not necessarily consrtructive for change!) is not a reason for the general apparent lack of transparency!!

[Tim Lund]

I'm always a bit sceptical about blaming landbanking, because whoever owns some land whose value is likely to rise will still have an interest in getting a return on it in the meantime. In this case, suppose in 20 years the Bakerloo comes to Bell Green, and there's a good business case for some serious investment, that means we, or Sainsbury's, should, while the Bakerloo extension is still only being talked about, be asking what a good 20 year life span use for the site would be.

[JGD]

In its most recent publication, TfL has decreed that the BakerLewisham line will not reach Catford, Forest Hill or Sydenham.

It will only reach Lewisham.

[Tim Lund]

20 years was maybe optimistic, but I think the long term case for extension towards Bromley is clear. It would be good to get some investment in the national rail line through Lower Sydenham too

[GillM]

It would be perfect for a John Lewis home store. That would be fab. Think I will email them.

[Larky]

John Lewis Home, oh yes ! That would be great

[Likelife]

Sad to see Toys R Us going, I did apply for a job there before I went uni. Ended up at John Lewis instead. John Lewis at Home would be perfect, from experience I know people go quite a long way to reach one. However, I doubt it would ever happen because of their future Westfield Croydon store.

Bakerloo Line to is Lewisham great. As for it taking over the Hayes Line, I'm getting a bit annoyed with all these politicians along the line banging on about it like its the end all, when compared to all the transport issues in the country, the case for it doesn't stack up that well. TfL has accepted that for the foreseeable. It's far more complex than just connecting the line at Ladywell and running trains. The Hayes Line would almost need a total rebuild and almost certainly need a brand new depot which would mean building on playing fields or bulldozing buildings. The £1 billion+ branch to Bromley would be duplicating the current route from Beckenham Junction and it would also take much longer to get to Charing Cross than it does now. The money cannot be justified within the next 30 years. What we really need is money spent on improving the current network across South London and a competent Transport Sec.

[JRW]

I agree with Lifelike about the bakerloo line being held up by huge redevelopment issues. Just look at the Southend rd railway bridge, which is regularly hit by over height vehicles and lorries. It would take a complete rebuild to solve the issues, and the tube doesn't want to run over unreliable track. Then the question of moving Lower Sydenham station. Repeat for every bridge and station.....

The current plans terminate at Lewisham, where the line will emerge from the tunnel, so completely new build. Let's hope this goes smoothly, so we get reconsidered.

[Emc]

The ToysRUs site would be an excellent location for a new cinema. How I wish someone would sweep in with some funds to set up a lovely Picturehouse. I have no doubts it would be very popular and easy for people to get to and park from neighbouring boroughs.

[Rachael]

The ToysRUs site would be an excellent location for a new cinema. How I wish someone would sweep in with some funds to set up a lovely Picturehouse. I have no doubts it would be very popular and easy for people to get to and park from neighbouring boroughs.

It would hardly fit with Picturehouse’s ethos of repurposing existing buildings of architectural interest.