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

[nicknack]

Any bird lovers among us may also be interested to know that house sparrows, which are on the London Biodiversity Action Plan Priority Species list, use the site for nesting - the 'cockney sparrow' virtually synonymous with London also now under threat. This is of course in addition to the peregrine falcons using the gasholders as a perch, as proved in SGN's own survey.

[nicknack]

Livesey Hall , its perimeter wall and War Memorial present themselves perfectly well without the presence of the gasometers.

You have a very good visual imagination then, as you've never seen Livesey Hall without them. I'm impressed by the way you can mentally picture the scene without these monumental structures which have been there for nearly 130 years clearly enough to know that their disappearance wouldn't adversely affect the context of the Hall.

[stuart]

You have a very good visual imagination then, as you've never seen Livesey Hall without them. I'm impressed by the way you can mentally picture the scene without these monumental structures which have been there for nearly 130 years clearly enough to know that their disappearance wouldn't adversely affect the context of the Hall.

I have a painting of the Livesey Hall in which the gasometers are partially obscured by trees. An artistic comment?

Trees have been known to be the resting place of rather more and varied species. I would rate their loss as rather more serious. Indeed the partial replacement of the blue gasometers by anything green would be good and the lower level elevation of the average Aldi store would be markedly less intrusive and be a more environmentally friendly view.

But there we are - we are all different. The real question is - why should your view prevail and who is going to pay for it?

Stuart

[nicknack]

I have a painting of the Livesey Hall in which the gasometers are partially obscured by trees. An artistic comment?

But there we are - we are all different. The real question is - why should your view prevail and who is going to pay for it?

Stuart

My recent painting of the gasholders is currently on display in Smart Chaps barbers in the High St, since you bring up the artistic angle.

I'm not suggesting my views should prevail, I'm merely putting them forward into the arena, particularly as most comment on this forum seems negative towards the gasholders. Who should pay? I can't put a price on them but I do value them, what was it Oscar Wilde said about knowing "the price of everything and the value of nothing"? Clearly, demolishing them and selling off the land to developers would make more money than maintaining them as they are, or re-purposing them in some other way, but that's a decision for the council planning department. It depends if you place any value on them as historic heritage assets which provide character and identity to the area. If you don't value them, clearly you will lose them. That's obvious. If we as a community do not see any value in preserving them, we don't deserve to have them.

[JGD]

Nicknack

I stand corrected.

There is - and has been for some considerable time - some seven lanes of dual carriageway (is that a record locally ?) from the junction of Stanton Way to the division at Bell Green.

It is certainly short but no less significant for that.

But it does not reach the gas holder site or Livesey Hall.

[JGD]

You have a very good visual imagination then, as you've never seen Livesey Hall without them. I'm impressed by the way you can mentally picture the scene without these monumental structures which have been there for nearly 130 years clearly enough to know that their disappearance wouldn't adversely affect the context of the Hall.

My visual acuity is not in question here.

But I have lived here since 1991. In that time the real representational aspects of the gasometers was in fact the constant raising and dropping of the bells. That solid vision is more accurate and very different to the idealised mirage that has emerged over recent months of the rib skeletons alone. So my ability to mentally visualise is not so impressive at all. If you were you trying to insult my capabilities - that rather reflects on you more than me.

If you have any trouble visualising the Livesey Hall without the ribs - I certainly do not - I suggest you try Photoshop..

[JRW]

I have to say I find the general level of disrespect on this forum annoying. Each person gets aggrieved by 'disrespect', without acknowledging their contributions in the genre.

It would be really great if everyone could show a bit more tolerance, stop slinging insults, and tone down the rants until they actually bother to read the paperwork. This behaviour puts off non-shouty types with useful contributions to make, and is detracting from the efforts to find the best resolution for everybody.

[Larky]

Stop posting inflammatory information which is not helping you at all.

All the different posts that you have made on school, Hillcrest Estate and Bell Green have information that you have twisted, which does not help the cause of any of these topics. It just puts people off

[JRW]

Thank you Larky, for demonstrating my point. Your repeated attacks on my honesty are not very edifying; if you wish to see my evidence, I would be happy to meet up and take you through it. As for the Monstrosity, Lewisham is about to announce a public meeting on Thursday 19th July at 7pm, to address serious concerns about the enforcement of its planning breaches. The acting head of planning will be there, and representatives of the Archdiocese, school, builders etc will be invited to attend to discuss next steps. All are welcome, so I will expect to see you there, to say your piece in public.

Do you think it likely that all this would be organised to humour me? The problems are there for anyone to see, if they compare the building to the approved plans. Your personal attacks on me are spiteful and ill-informed.

[stuart]

I have to say I find the general level of disrespect on this forum annoying. Each person gets aggrieved by 'disrespect', without acknowledging their contributions in the genre.

It would be really great if everyone could show a bit more tolerance, stop slinging insults, and tone down the rants.

Not everyone is getting aggrieved or knowingly slinging insults. This is a divisive subject which we should approach with moderation and try to square or accept our differences rather than exagerate them.

The issue is when you do - you tend to get paid back in spades which is of no use to anyone. The bottom line is, if you like me, don't appreciate personal attacks - try and be careful of not initiating or sustaining them.

So lets get back to the gasholders please. Or rather the skeletel structure that controlled their rise and fall. For, as someone upthread has reminded us, they have long gone. Do you really want them back?

Stuart

[JRW]

At no point have I ever been rude to Larky, although my response to these kind of attacks may have been cooler than usual.
Larky to JRW, 9 Jul 2018 20:38
"Stop posting inflammatory information which is not helping you at all.
All the different posts that you have made on school, Hillcrest Estate and Bell Green have information that you have twisted, which does not help the cause of any of these topics. It just puts people off"

Larky » 9 Jul 2018 09:50
"JRW - seems to get facts wrong all the time and twist them"

Larky » 25 Jun 2018 19:12
"JRW always seems to come up with misleading facts on all topics on this forum"

As I said, not very edifying. Personal attacks because he/she doesn't like my viewpoint. Unwarranted accusations, with no evidence behind them, or any specific issue with a particular fact, wheras I can show you documentary evidence to support my due diligence behind every fact and opinion I state.

If this continues, am simply not going to bother with this site, much like most of the local population, who have become tired of this kind of unpleasantness.

[Pally]

I am most certainly not advocating personal attacks on anyone. However, reading through the thread and the Philip Neri one there are a number of occasions where you JRW have given facts from your perspective presumably with evidence and someone else has given facts that contradict yours also presumably with evidence (and sometimes quoted evidence). The quoted evidence (or links) appear to suggest accuracy which if contradicting yours, can suggest to people a version of Larky's criticisms. As I said I am NOT advocating such comments just pointing out a possible cause! Evidence seen is key!

[Sideofham]

As this subject is becoming a bit divisive and causing some disharmony I suggest a referendum for everyone who lives in SE26 with the simple question:

Should the Bell Green gas holders be pulled down?

YES
NO

Both the Brexit and Scottish referendums proved popular and did a lot to bring communities together and I think it will work in Sydenham too.

[LadyLewisham]

Is it just the cynic in me that feels that the original half hearted planning application for demolition was intentional to see what grounds the council would deny it on?? They then put in more detailed application dealing with the councils concern leaving little grounds for council to turn it down again?

As correct me if I'm wrong, this isn't permission to demolition this is approving the methods in which it is done??

[JGD]

LadyLewisham - your interpretation is very close to the way I understand things to be - I think you have the rights of it with one exception - SGN having secured it means the demolition can go ahead without further consent or approval being required.

At risk of repetition:

Approval of “Prior Notification” does not need councillors' decision. It is decided by planning officers and will approve SGN’s method of demolition.

Planners must only consider the method, not the merit, of demolition. Government has made it a permitted development provided a prior notification process is undertaken.

Planners must make a decision in 28 days, government has set clear parameters, including a default in favour of permission at the end of the 28 days, should a decision not be made.

[mosy]

JGD, many thanks from now Less Confused of Tunbridge Wells for taking time yesterday to set down the current position.

I'm glad the toxicity issue will be addressed in any case. Stuart just mentioned the time since decommissioning (North Sea gas conversion was 1966-1976) so a long time, plus a much cleaner gas re harmful emissions. Just need to stop vehicle emissions now...

Sideofham asks Yes/No, remove/retain. I'm neutral about the meaningless ribs themselves. It's what will come now/after in these stringently austere times, with or without them, that's of primary concern to me. A pollster's nightmare, only one reply and even that would be classed as Don't Know

PS: Forget to post this link which is a one-page history of gas: http://muswell-hill.com/business-websit ... ge-in.html

[JGD]

There has been an appeal lodged against the council's refusal of the Aldi store so, in addition to the new application for demolition alone, there is a live proposal for the Aldi store. ........

There are no plans to demolish or directly alter The Livesey Hall and its Perimeter Wall and the War Memorial (all of which are listed).
.

The application Appeal is for substantially more than just the Aldi store.

The complete list includes 1,855sqm Aldi Food Store and 100 car parking spaces, and cycle stores; 168sqm Coffee Shop & 325sqm Restaurant, facing onto Alan Pegg Place, including outdoor seating and cycle stores; 1,104sqm Depot and ancillary offices for Southern Gas Networks consisting of a two-storey building and service yard, together with associated car parking and cycle stores; Boundary treatment, and hard & soft landscaping works with the provision of a new garden area for Livesey Hall and dedicated parking for use by the patrons of the Hall.

The application had the Lewisham endorsed SCOOT proposal included

[Larky]

Jobs, a tidy space and community.

The way forward.

[TredownMan]

I see Syd Soc are still talking about the peregrine falcons

Even though the independent experts have already determined that they are NOT an issue for the demolition because they don’t nest there

Strange how people only listen to experts when it suits their personal preferences

[broken_shaman]

I see Syd Soc are still talking about the peregrine falcons

Even though the independent experts have already determined that they are NOT an issue for the demolition because they don’t nest there

Strange how people only listen to experts when it suits their personal preferences

Are these independent experts the same ones paid by the developers to commission a report in support of the process to remove the gas holders? How independent are they?

At least one august body in our midst has lost its way, a little at least. It is suggesting that it has received advice that modern construction techniques mean that housing can be erected on-site and that this will not disturb the soil and therefore eliminate the need for remediation and clean up works. Leaving the inevitable toxins and pollutants in the soil.

However in all cases SGN will be obliged to ensure that the ground is remediated and all toxins and pollutants are removed. The have this obligation in absolute terms and will not expose their business to the risk of pollutants remaining in the ground.

SGN's plan is to leave the pollutants in the ground. It's all there in the documentation. They could have bioremediated or removed the pollution, but chose to seal it in instead.



All been decided now anyway and no prior approval required. So the locally listed Gas Holders will be gone forever, the pollution will stay in the ground forever, limiting use of the site, and Sydenham got nothing out of the 'deal' to tackle the wider issues of congestion and pollution in the area.

Apparently demolition should be done outside of the nesting period, unless no nests identified and SGN have already cleared the existing nests, presumably before getting their 'independent' report done. So the character should be swept out of the area soon.