Bell Green Gas Holders - Proposal to Demolish in April 2018.

JRW · Post by **JRW** » 11 Apr 2018 22:04

Whether you appreciate the gasholders or not, it is hard to see why they should be removed, considering their hinterland of dereliction and neglect. Lewisham needs to spur on the landowners, and insist they use their landbanks to develop housing. Until then, there is no excuse for destroying the last trace of character in the area.

The Clown · Post by **The Clown** » 12 Apr 2018 09:53

Drove up that way yesterday, and they are definitely the best thing about it!

JayB · Post by **JayB** » 12 Apr 2018 14:01

The Clown wrote:Drove up that way yesterday, and they are definitely the best thing about it!

Probably, (though the river walk deserves credit) but we are talking about Bell Green here; it is hardly a high bar! Some nice, very well designed residential blocks could still take the accolade of "best in Bell Green" perhaps? Or even just a few square metres free of litter and naff signage?

JRW · Post by **JRW** » 12 Apr 2018 14:10

Absolutely. That was my point, that there is pretty much nothing there, because of landbanking. There are acres of derelict space where homes could and should be built, just next door. Gasholders versus housing is a misleading contest, when there is room for both. This is about greed; landowners holding out for the Bakerloo line, and refusing to act, and SGN hoping to cash in, selling the only 'available' land. Time for compulsory purchase to be on the table.

Pally · Post by **Pally** » 12 Apr 2018 15:36

Good points JRW!

biscuitman1978 · Post by **biscuitman1978** » 12 Apr 2018 16:35

perryman wrote:
JGD wrote:Micheal from FOHSoc has notified us on SE23.life that the planning application for demolition is not what it seems.

It is a "Prior notification of the demolition of the two existing gasholders and ancillary buildings at Bell Green SE26." and as such notifications do not require a decision, de facto the stated operation to demolish therefore may proceed unhindered on the specified date

I have reservations about this interpretation..
Yes, this seems very odd. The holders are meant to be locally listed and this status is supposed to be fully considered, in any planning decision.
Any local listing means nothing if a structure can be first demolished and planning permission for its replacement sought afterwards.

I don't care for the holders myself, but some do seem to like them and if an expert saw value in them during the listing process then their demolition certainly seems like a planning issue to me.

Demolition of a building or a structure is typically 'permitted development', though it may need the 'prior approval' of the local planning authority for (a) the method of demolition, and (b) the proposed restoration of the site. No other issues can be considered.

The main exceptions are:
- Where the proposal is for demolition of a pub (in which case planning permission will be required)
- Where the building or structure is in a conservation area (in which case planning permission will be required)
- Where the building or structure is listed (in which case listed building consent will be required) (NB This doesn't apply where the building is locally listed.)
- Where the scale of demolition is so significant that an environmental impact assessment is required (in which case planning permission will be required)

The gas holders are evidently not a pub, and are not in a conservation area and are not listed. In addition, Lewisham Council has previously advised SGN that an environmental impact assessment is not required.

It follows that the most that will be required for demolition is prior approval. That offers no opportunity to consider the gas holders' locally listed status.

It appears from the online records that Lewisham Council decided yesterday that prior approval is required, and the information submitted to date by the applicant is inadequate. The Council is now seeking:
- Additional information on highways (such as proposed loading arrangements)
- A remediation statement

JRW · Post by **JRW** » 12 Apr 2018 17:57

Check out the actual decision letter from the head of planning..

JRW · Post by **JRW** » 12 Apr 2018 18:04

It is quite strongly stated, in unusually emphatic tone with many capital letters, that there are a lot of things to be done before they can apply. No one thinks this is the last word, but it seems that SGN haven't done themselves any favours.

biscuitman1978 · Post by **biscuitman1978** » 13 Apr 2018 13:27

JRW wrote:Check out the actual decision letter from the head of planning..

That's what I'd been looking at

JRW wrote:It is quite strongly stated, in unusually emphatic tone with many capital letters, that there are a lot of things to be done before they can apply. No one thinks this is the last word, but it seems that SGN haven't done themselves any favours.

The tone and capitalisation of certain words is standard for decision notices of this type where the council has concluded that prior approval is required.

The point I was making was simply that there is no basis for taking into account the locally listed status of the gas holders in an application for prior approval for demolition.

TredownMan · Post by **TredownMan** » 16 Apr 2018 14:18

I read that the position now is that demolishing the gasholders would interfere with the Peregrine falcon and thereby be a criminal offence; but also that the gasholders should be used for residential.

But won’t building houses inside the gasholders interfere with the falcon?

JRW · Post by **JRW** » 16 Apr 2018 14:55

Building work can take place, but not in the nesting season, so this merely stops them acting to demolish immediately. They are fully entitled to try again, but we have a bit of extra information about what their intentions, before the end of the nesting season. In addition, it allows us to press for an environmental audit, as the one provided by the developer is an absolute joke.

Personally, I think that building housing in it would be premature, given the abundance of derelict land around it. I would favour a temporary use in leisure, which would allow the gasholders to be developed for housing later, when the rest of Bell Green is populated, and the market would allow for a higher quality conversion. That is my personal view; many others are available! Having said that, if someone came up with a viable design that could be delivered, I'd be thrilled.

JRW · Post by **JRW** » 16 Apr 2018 15:14

One other point; it is totally misleading to cite the prices and costs of redeveloping the Kings Cross gasholders as making the Bell Green project impossible. In Kings Cross, because of the wholesale re-shaping of the landscape, the gasholders had to be dismantled piece by piece. Each piece was then renovated, and the whole gasholder was reconstructed in a more convenient place. Add to that the cost of land in the newly trendy area, and you have an eyewatering cost to pass on to the buyers. Our gasholders don't need moving, and there is therefore a fraction of the amount of labour involved in preserving them compared to KX.

TredownMan · Post by **TredownMan** » 16 Apr 2018 17:24

In that case - if it can indeed be done - I'm 100% in favour. Some landmark architecture and high density housing would do the area a lot of good.

alywin · Post by **alywin** » 17 Apr 2018 23:33

But if the land under/around the holders is contaminated, how can it be used for housing? Isn't that why we've got what we have got down at Bell Green (lucky us), including the park/river walk or whatever it actually is? (I wasn't living in the immediate area when all that bit was redeveloped, so wasn't paying a huge amount of attention)

TredownMan · Post by **TredownMan** » 18 Apr 2018 06:55

Well many may ask that Alwyn.

But the Sydenham Society has found experts who know how to build inside the gasholders, without dismantling them, or disturbing the underlying soil, or upsetting the birdlife, and without needing to charge Kings Cross prices. Some may be sceptical but if it can be done let’s get behind it and make it happen.

Tim Lund · Post by **Tim Lund** » 26 Apr 2018 20:49

Sent in an email from Lewisham's Ecology Officer.

Peregrines are very territorial, although I've been told that in cities, where there are so many pigeons to eat, they gradually become more comfortable with other birds in what they might consider their back yards. Interesting question the extent to which this is genetic or cultural

JGD · Post by **JGD** » 27 Apr 2018 07:01

TredownMan wrote: ... or disturbing the underlying soil, or upsetting the birdlife, .

The issue of soil disturbance is not particularly relevant.

Large rising bells and a substantial containment pond of water is present below the ribs.

These will have to be removed and the pond emptied and dug out, the area finally decontaminated and then backfilled.

And this operation will have to happen in either case - a re-build or a demolition.

JGD · Post by **JGD** » 30 Apr 2018 07:55

Courtesy of the BBC - some detail on gasholders:

You can see a typical cross-section detail of the underground water tank.

syd · Post by **syd** » 30 Apr 2018 10:46

It would be great if the little things are done first like asking Sports Direct to cover those rough looking breeze blocks. How did that get through planning?

JGD · Post by **JGD** » 30 Apr 2018 11:10

I took up the case of the pre-Sports Direct diagonal timber shuttering that enclosed that entire area plus the poor quality of the general white surface on the remainder of the development with Lewisham planners. I contended that what was an allegedly approved high quality white finish was in fact a poorly applied cheap material that presented, then and now, a patchwork quilt effect.

The planners responded that they had no powers to remedy the sub-standard finishes but that they would refer the query to the developer. I am certain I will have copies of the correspondence.

So how did the Sports Direct blocks get past planners - not at all sure - but by that time I am almost certain the planners had disengaged. They may have been influenced by the fact that the location had lain vacant for sometime before occupation - and may have held a pragmatic view that the prospective tenant had the upper hand in negotiation and a better specification for the wall finish was not on the table.

But then - who knows ?.

Sydenham Town Forum

The Community Voice for London SE26 since 2004