Bell Green: Planning Inspectorate Public Enquiry announced

[JRW]

Pasted from today's Sydenham Society E-Newsletter

News has just come through that the application (turned down by a Lewisham planning meeting last November) to turn the former gas works site into an Aldi supermarket will now go to a public enquiry in the autumn.

Kier/SGN are appealing Lewisham Council’s decision to refuse planning consent for an Aldi supermarket, storage facility and associated car parking at Bell Green. The Planning Inspectorate have now decided that the appeal hearing will take the form of a three-day public inquiry, to take place at a future date. The deadline for comments to the Planning Inspectorate is Tuesday July 31.

The planning committee refused consent for the scheme for the following reasons:
Building on the bowling green would destroy the setting of the Grade 2 listed Livesey Hall & War Memorial;

The application, by reason of additional traffic and congestion generated by the retail units, would have an unacceptable impact on the Bell Green gyratory system and local streets;

Permitting more retail at Bell Green would exceed the amount allowed in Lewisham’s Core Strategy (the planning framework), thereby harming the retail character and viability of adjacent shopping centres;

The application failed to demonstrate that traffic & vehicular movement associated with the proposed development would not increase levels of air pollution and would therefore have an unacceptable impact upon local amenity and air quality.

The Sydenham Society continues to object to the proposed development for all the reasons stated above. In addition, the Society will also object on the grounds that Listed Building Consent should have been sought for the following reason:

“In cases where a building is listed, irrespective of the category, all items and ancillary structures within the curtilage are included. Listed Building Consent is required to remove or demolish anything, even a gatepost.”
The boundary wall is Grade 2 listed – hence Listed Building Consent should have been sought for the plan to demolish the bowls pavilion and turn the bowling green into a car park.

You can make a comment on the appeal by going to the link HERE by Tuesday July 31:

The former large ToysRus store less than 200m away is now empty. Surely common sense indicates that Aldi should take up this site rather than much-needed space for housing.

[Growsydenham]

I agree with the comment from Syd Soc that this a prime site for new housing, and getting more houses built in this area would be a good thing.

The trend for buildings with supermarkets underneath and houses on top in London is also becoming more popular. Perhaps that could be considered here.

[JGD]

I agree with the comment from Syd Soc that this a prime site for new housing, and getting more houses built in this area would be a good thing.

The trend for buildings with supermarkets underneath and houses on top in London is also becoming more popular. Perhaps that could be considered here.

This issue of the site being suitable for housing re-appears repetitiously. No-one from the authority brings forward any such proposals, funding source or suitable partners.

The authority does however develop proposals for other locations as per this article.

http://www.newsshopper.co.uk/news/16379 ... =mrb&lp=11

88 new homes across five sites, at an estimated value of £25.7m, at Somerville Estate, Bampton Estate, Algernon Road, Grace Path and Silverdale Hall. At circa £292.1k per unit. Interestingly the authority is allegedly re-examining its processes for the Bampton Court proposal and unless that matter has been settled, an announcement about that element might seem premature.

A further 64 new homes at Knapdale Close, Hillcrest Estate and Kenton Court, at a value of £22.5m. At circa £351.5k per unit.

6 new homes at the scheme known as Marnock Road in Crofton Park ward for £1.68m (circa £280k per unit) , as well as nine new homes at the Endwell Road scheme in Telegraph Hill ward, for £2.3m. At circa £255.5k per unit.

[Growsydenham]

You are right JGD. I hope all of them go ahead. Ultimately the council struggles to build houses where it doesn’t already own the land.

As far as I can tell the Brampton Court proposals are for 50 new council flats for elderly people but have been met with a very vociferous campaign against by other people on the estate, which I think is a terrible shame.

[John H]

Unless and until something is done to assist traffic flow there should be a total block on any development at Bell Green. Southend Lane needs to be made capable of accepting the traffic. That means a new wider, deeper under pass. There is a great deal that can be done to improve the road network at Bell Green. All that is lacking is the will. It does not affect Forest Hill which is where most of the councillors live.

[JGD]

The planning committee refused consent for the scheme for the following reasons:
Building on the bowling green would destroy the setting of the Grade 2 listed Livesey Hall & War Memorial;

The application, by reason of additional traffic and congestion generated by the retail units, would have an unacceptable impact on the Bell Green gyratory system and local streets;

Permitting more retail at Bell Green would exceed the amount allowed in Lewisham’s Core Strategy (the planning framework), thereby harming the retail character and viability of adjacent shopping centres;

The application failed to demonstrate that traffic & vehicular movement associated with the proposed development would not increase levels of air pollution and would therefore have an unacceptable impact upon local amenity and air quality.

The Sydenham Society continues to object to the proposed development for all the reasons stated above. In addition, the Society will also object on the grounds that Listed Building Consent should have been sought for the following reason:

“In cases where a building is listed, irrespective of the category, all items and ancillary structures within the curtilage are included. Listed Building Consent is required to remove or demolish anything, even a gatepost.”
The boundary wall is Grade 2 listed – hence Listed Building Consent should have been sought for the plan to demolish the bowls pavilion and turn the bowling green into a car park.


The former large ToysRus store less than 200m away is now empty. Surely common sense indicates that Aldi should take up this site rather than much-needed space for housing.

Accuracy is all.

Here is the precise extract from the decision notice:

R E A S O N (S) F O R R E F U S A L
1. The siting of the proposed development and associated car-parking would result in the
unacceptable loss of existing ancillary green open space to the north of Livesey Hall,
which would serve to have an adverse and unsympathetic impact upon the historic
character, prominence and setting of the Grade II Listed building, War Memorial and
front boundary wall, contrary to Policy 7.8 Heritage assets and archaeology of the
London Plan (2016), Core Strategy Policy 15 ‘High quality design for Lewisham’ and
Core Strategy Policy 16 ‘Conservation areas, heritage assets and the historic
environment’ of the Core Strategy (2011), and DM Policy 30 ‘Urban design and local
character’ and DM Policy 36 'New development, changes of use and alterations
affecting designated heritage assets and their setting: conservation areas, listed
buildings, schedule of ancient monuments and registered parks and gardens’ of the
Development Management Local Plan (2014).
2. The application, by reason of additional traffic and congestion generated by the retail
units would impact detrimentally upon the surrounding gyratory and local residential
streets, contrary to Policy 6.12 ‘Road network capacity’ of the London Plan (2016),
Core Strategy Policy 14: ‘Sustainable movement and transport’ (2011) and DM Policy
29 ‘Car-parking’ of the Development Management Local Plan (2014).
3. The provision of the proposed additional A1 floorspace within the wider Bell Green
retail park would exceed the prescribed maximum retail limit of 16,110sq.m as set out
in the Core Strategy (2011), thereby harming the retail character and viability of
adjacent shopping centres, contrary to Policy 4.7 ‘Retail and town centre development’
of the London Plan (2016), Spatial Policy 4 ‘Local Hubs’ and Core strategy Policy 6
‘Retail hierarchy and location of retail development’ of the Core Strategy (2011), and
DM 13 ‘Location of main town centre uses’ of the Development Management Local
Plan (2014).
4. The application fails to demonstrate sufficiently that traffic and vehicular movement
associated with the proposed development would not increase levels of air pollution
within the area and would therefore have an unacceptable impact upon amenity,
contrary to Policy 7.14 ‘Improving air quality’ of the London Plan (2016), Core Strategy
Policy 9 ‘Improving local air quality’ of the Core strategy (2011), and DM Policy 23 ‘Air
quality’ of the Development Management Local Plan (2014).

The over emotive phrase "destroy the setting" does not appear in the Decision Notice nor can the phrase which does appear, "result in unacceptable loss of existing ancillary green open space to the north of Livesey Hall" be interpreted to mean "destroy."

The authority's own planning officers reported conversely that the presence of the gas holders and the waste-land site upon which they sat that they impacted negatively upon the historic character, prominence and setting of the Grade II Listed building, War Memorial and front boundary wall. So choose your preferred opinion.

There are three Grade II listed elements present, The Livesey Memorial Hall, The War Memorial and the Front Wall.

It no sense can the interpretation of the word curtilage be extended to embrace every element nor the total area of of the site in any context of the Grade II listings. Any attempt to do so is phenomenally inaccurate and errant nonsense.

A few accurate and salient points. The reason the bowling club closed (like others in the borough) was because of diminishing membership and NOT as part of any hidden agenda on the part of SGN. There is a thriving social club trading on the site. There are no proposals and no risk that this will be converted into a night club. And historically, there was a tennis court on site too - but no-one mentions that.

[stuart]

Southend Lane needs to be made capable of accepting the traffic. That means a new wider, deeper under pass. There is a great deal that can be done to improve the road network at Bell Green.

I believe it is policy to keep the railway bridge as a pinch point. Indeed Southend Lane has been reduced from 4 lanes to 2. Bringing both up to to 4 lanes would make that part of the journey a dream for vehicle users but just shift the queues to join the existing ones in Sydenham Road and to the Bromley Road. Hence a net loss to the environment at extortionate cost.

The trick is to make the existing infrastructure more efficient at shifting people. There are many ways to do this quite cheaply. The paradox is the more people you shift from cars to buses and cycles and encouraging people to work/play/shop closer to home - the better it is for everybody - including car users.

Redesigning the gyratory system to better accommodate buses and cycles and further improving Bell Green as a public transport hub may be a better way to go with a new Aldi as the prize.

Stuart

[Tim Lund]

I agree with the comment from Syd Soc that this a prime site for new housing, and getting more houses built in this area would be a good thing.

If consensus is breaking out here, but noting so far no commercial developers are coming forward to convert the gas holders into residential, as might be happening at the Oval



Source here

I was wondering if in the spirit of building further (metaphorical) bridges, we could call in these guys



New Cross activists build 'house in one day' on council land over 'scandalous' lack of social housing

[mosy]

@ Tim Lund re "build in a day", I recall seeing a TV prog about Washington DC prefab two up two down houses - i.e. everything fashioned offsite and brought and erected in no time, rather like how they built the Shard. Needless to say, we tend to prefer bricks and mortar rather than wood cladding or curtain walling cladding that now has a very bad name. Prefabs also assume land space, so can't be high rise or high density which is what the government wants for inner cities "where people want to live" (and keeps them out of NIMBY land).

Interesting suggestion about climate change and resisting sun heat of the future on TV was setting windows back with balconies in front. The new ones on Sydenham Road, Zanara Court, have balconies which I can't figure - why would people want to sit out in traffic fumes plus that side doesn't get the sun anyway. Most perplexing.

[JayB]

[

Redesigning the gyratory system to better accommodate buses and cycles and further improving Bell Green as a public transport hub may be a better way to go with a new Aldi as the prize.

Stuart

Aldi themselves were predicting that a new store would generate over 3000 additional return journeys a day ( with a vested interest in down playing the amount of traffic a new store would generate) so that arguiment makes no sense whilst any busy retailer is a part of the equation. There is no evidence traffic management systems of any description could offset this amount of additional pollution. Fix the roads at Bell Green and no more retail development.
There are plenty of suggestions as to what else can be done with the site, not all unaffordable by any means (I agree luxury housing within the gas storage is a far stretch) but it seems nothing much is ever plausible for the naysayers of Sydenham. At one point many people on here were stating categorically that housing was out of the question.Is the best we can hope for really an Aldi?

[stuart]

ldi themselves were predicting that a new store would generate over 3000 additional return journeys a day ( with a vested interest in down playing the amount of traffic a new store would generate) so that arguiment makes no sense whilst any busy retailer is a part of the equation. There is no evidence traffic management systems of any description could offset this amount of additional pollution. Fix the roads at Bell Green and no more retail development.

Two points - its 3000 additional journeys per day. Is it new shopping or displacement of journeys to other retail centres? For many it will shorten all journeys to Aldi (replacing Catford or Anerley). But I guess Savacentre will be the biggest target.

Aldi & Lidl is now where people are switching their business from the hypermarkets. The high street cannot accommodate a full range edition of either so are we to travel far or stick with the increasingly unethical Sainsbury's?

As for the 3,000 - and the existing traffic - the point is surely is the travel mode. Would you support sticking a parking charge or other methods to encourage people to consider more environmentally better ways to get there and not to pollute Hazelwood School and make much more efficient use of our overstretched road system?

Surely we agree the status quo is unacceptable for so many reasons. So why support it?

Stuart

[sparticus]

Interesting piece in today's Guardian about Lidl and other supermarket chains wanting to open lots more stores in the London area and getting past local authority planning by building stores with affordable flats above. I imagine Aldi could be just as receptive if it meant that they would get the go-ahead. Could this be a way forward? For all the reasons rehearsed above I think the idea of retaining the gasometers with housing within is probably a non-starter and in themselves I don't think they are worth preserving if we could see affordable home on the site, with or without a Aldi supermarket.

[Tim Lund]

Interesting piece in today's Guardian about Lidl and other supermarket chains wanting to open lots more stores in the London area and getting past local authority planning by building stores with affordable flats above. I imagine Aldi could be just as receptive if it meant that they would get the go-ahead. Could this be a way forward? For all the reasons rehearsed above I think the idea of retaining the gasometers with housing within is probably a non-starter and in themselves I don't think they are worth preserving if we could see affordable home on the site, with or without a Aldi supermarket.

Interesting language, "getting past local authority planning". Is it just taken for granted that 'planning' is a problem, rather than something which helps us get well planned cities? It shouldn't be that way. Anyway, 100% agreement here, and here's a photo I used in a blog on another site earlier this year



BTW, here's the link to the Guardian piece

Discount grocer Lidl plans to build 3,000 homes and a school

[stuart]

Looks like a perfect solution Tim. Satisfies SydSoc's wish for housing on the site with a realistic way of financing it. Hopefully SydSoc and others may want to come aboard and help build a consensus and campaign for this approach.

Stuart

[Growsydenham]

Shops below, flats to five-storeys above --- sounds a lot like Sydenham's high street. Both land efficient and makes an area seem neighbourly all day long.

Foresighted lot, the Victorians.

[Tim Lund]

Interesting suggestion about climate change and resisting sun heat of the future on TV was setting windows back with balconies in front. The new ones on Sydenham Road, Zanara Court, have balconies which I can't figure - why would people want to sit out in traffic fumes plus that side doesn't get the sun anyway. Most perplexing.

Well within the life time of these buildings vehicles on Sydenham Road could be entirely electric, better cycles, possibly both -



How two-wheelers are weaving their way into urban transport

at which point it will be pleasure to sit out and see the world go by.

[JGD]

Cometh the day, cometh the hour.

Just a few hours left until deadline is reached. Representation can be made here:

https://acp.planninginspectorate.gov.uk ... id=3203617

And in the spirit of openness and transparency.

Representation on Case APP/C5690/W/18/3203617

Submitted by John Doherty, XXX Perry Hill London SE6 XXX

I write to you today to express my support for the proposal noted below and as specified in the documents for LB Lewisham case reference DC/17/100680 I am a neighbour who lives in close proximity to the site.

The removal of existing gasholders and associated equipment and redevelopment of land to the east of Perry Hill, SE6 to provide:-
 1,855 sq m (A1 Use Class) Food Store and 100 car parking spaces, and cycle stores;
 168 sq m (Use Class A1) Coffee Shop & 325 sq m (Use Class A3) Restaurant, fronting Alan Pegg Place, including outdoor seating and cycle stores;
 1,104 sq m (B8 Use Class with ancillary offices) Depot 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 including the provision of a new garden area.

Whilst this case includes a proposal to demolish the gasholders, it is noted that the agents have submitted a separate Demolition – Prior Approval Notice under Schedule 2, Part 11 Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015a Prior Notice, LB Lewisham case reference DC/18/107607 to demolish the gasholders. LB Lewisham has granted its consent to this Prior Notice on 11 July 2018.

It is contended that this separate decision by LB Lewisham to permit the demolition of the gas holders represents a substantive and material change to the context of the authority's decision to reject the application overall.

I would request that you consider the following three points in your deliberations on this case. It is my view that LB Lewisham are in error and failed in three significant areas to discharge their obligations whilst in the process of making their determinations on the case.

1. LB Lewisham failed to issue Notices to neighbours or to post suitable advertisements in accordance with mandated procedures advising neighbours and interested parties that a Planning Application and a Planning Appeal had been submitted. It is contended that this failure is significant and it had undue negative influence on submissions made by neighbours.
2. Planning Officers conducted negotiations and consultations with the developers agents for a period of approximately one year. The developer's agents altered their proposals in light of many of the points raised in these consultations. Planning Officers in turn prepared and submitted a report that was broadly supportive of the proposal and made recommendation to elected members that the approval be granted.
Noticeably in the last few weeks before Planning Sub-Committee C made its decision, a number of elected members allied themselves with Sydenham Society to propose that the Gas Holders be subject to a Local Listing.
This belated and rushed proposal embraced a submission by the Victorian Society which postulated that the two gas holders warranted such a listing. This, despite Historic England, the subject-matter experts, having declined to list both structures on the basis that neither structure had any unique features and therefore did not merit a listing. Historic England issued two COIL notices for the structures. The planners confessed that once more they had not followed mandated process as described in Clause 1 above.
This mis-directed and mis-placed submission was approved by council in advance of the meeting conducted by Planning Sub-Committee C by a matter of a few weeks.
It is contended that LB Lewisham are in error and permitted inappropriate and undue influence and pressure to be brought to bear, both directly and indirectly, across the entire process. This undue influence may be viewed as having impacted on Planning Officers and elected members who sat on Sub-Committee C. It is further contended that these actions specifically compromised the integrity of the process and thereby the decision to reject the application.
3. Sydenham Society and Forest Hill Society are two civic societies that are located in areas and wards that are in part contiguous to the ward boundary in which the case site is located. Whilst part contiguous, neither civic society has any significant membership within the Bellingham Ward, in which the case site is situated and we, its neighbours, live. Both societies' links to the Bellingham Ward could best be described as tenuous.
Neither society elected to engage with, consult with or open any dialogue with any significant number of Bellingham Ward residents and thereby as a result of that failure they were unable to identify key benefits of the proposal to the site's immediate neighbours.
These key benefits included the provision of off-street parking within the development for the patrons of the Grade II listed Livesey Memorial Hall. The Hall is a well run social club which serves the local community and frequently hosts large scale funerary events and weddings. Patrons of these events place intolerable pressures on available parking spaces in the immediate neighbourhood on event days. The easement that would have been provided to local residents and their ability to access and park near their homes by the provision of this off-street parking would be substantive.
Additional easement was lost in the rejection. Traffic movement measures were to be funded and installed by the developer in the form of installation of advanced SCOOT system . This installation was intended to improve long term traffic flow measures around the Bell Green area.
Both civic societies made submissions in support of the rejection of the planning application to LB Lewisham. In doing so both societies relied upon their status as bodies recognised by LB Lewisham and thereby their submissions were given undue weight during the application stage .
It is contended that LB Lewisham were in error to give such undue weight to the submissions from the Sydenham Society and the Forest Hill Society to such an extent that Bellingham Ward residents in particular had their voices diminished and therefore their views discounted and were in turn significantly disbenefitted by the loss of easement provisions contained in the development proposal.
Due recognition must be given to LB Lewisham's Planning Directorate's intention to conduct consultation on what considerations must be given to societies making submissions in geographic locations where the societies have limited or zero membership and from that what weight must be attributed to such submissions made by these societies in these circumstances.
The outcome of this consultation is not known to me.

In closing I would thank you for your consideration of the points I raise here.

We have observed the development of what is now a substantial retail park from its inception in 1993 and have had to adjust and endure many tribulations caused by increase in traffic almost to the point of saturation and that we know it will not be made worse by this or indeed any form of additional development.

We had invested some faith in the fact that this final phase of development would provide easements which have been described above have been overdue for approximately 25 years. You might agree that these easements, in the round, are not huge, but please do not under-estimate their importance.

Let none make any accusation that Bellingham Ward residents are not patient.

[JRW]

To: https://acp.planninginspectorate.gov.uk
Case Officer: Tim Salter
Appeal APP/C5690/W/18/3203617
Land to the East of Perry Hill, Sydenham, SE6 4HD

Dear Commissioners,

I am adamantly opposed to the appeal proposals made by Kier and SGN, on every one of the grounds stated by the LPA. I would, however, also wish to stress the much overlooked issue of the legal protection due to any listed building’s curtilage.

Historic England states:
'Any object or structure fixed to the principal building or buildings and any object or structure within the curtilage of the building, which, although not fixed to the building, forms part of the land and has done so since before 1st July, 1948 is by law to be treated as part of the listed building.’

During the planning process on the redevelopment at Bell Green, no consideration has been given to the listed Livesey Memorial Hall's curtilage. The current plans involve destroying listed-by-curtilage structures such as the pavilion and bowling-green. Slicing away at the curtilage diminishes the hall, destroying its historic relevance, its visual impact, and its status as a local icon. The boundary walls denote the curtilage length; the pavilion & tennis courts its depth. This is clearly delineated on each map from the Hall’s opening to the present day; the rear boundary is yet to be established by Historic England, but given the gasholders are only 10 metres from the listed Hall, it is possible that at least one small section might be within the curtilage. I will personally be devastated if the gasholders are demolished, as their delicate tracery against the sky is joyful, and inspires many local artists to try and capture them. As a background to the Livesey, it places it in its industrial context; united, they form a beloved local landscape in area which is frankly ugly, consisting of acres of windswept tarmac.

The entire issue of curtilage was brushed aside in planning, and the developers included very few pictures of the rear of the hall, or sports grounds. The developers have extensive historical evidence at the National Grid Archives in Warrington, and the Diaries of Events from the Club, last seen several years ago at the Hall, but their historian seems to have had no access to it. I hope you will ask the developers to digitise a group of 20 documents of this archive material for the Enquiry; we particularly need digitised copies of the photo albums covering the Livesey end of the Sydenham works. Plans and elevations would also help us demonstrate the gasworks / Livesey interface, as would other information about the Livesey Memorial Hall, its social and sporting activities, and resources. I feel strongly that companies who wish to demolish historic assets should at the very least make their historical record accessible before destroying the original.

I am also concerned about the planned demolition works being so close to the Hall, given the way that SGN has neglected the listed structures. Insensitive repairs have been made to them, without requesting authorisation from Historic England. In particular, the repairs to the War Memorial, whose stolen plaques were substituted with temporary printed versions affixed in the wrong size, design, placing and material. Undertaking such poor repairs to a listed structure, and allowing the centenary of the end of WW1 to be marked in this way is shameful to the memory of the gasworkers that served. Before the developers should be allowed to demolish the gasometers, it is vital that they compile a detailed schedule of the intended techniques to keep the Hall safe from the demolition happening only 10 metres away.

The developers had the option to request a listing enhancement from Historic England, thus clarifying the legal status of the curtilage, and preventing this last-minute wrangling. Carrying out works without listed building consent is a criminal offence, as any responsible developer is aware, so SGN, Kier & Arqiva were unfortunate in committing to a plan that was unlikely to be approved.

.....................

https://content.historicengland.org.uk/ ... ilage.pdf/

[JGD]

I am also concerned about the planned demolition works being so close to the Hall, given the way that SGN has neglected the listed structures. Insensitive repairs have been made to them, without requesting authorisation from Historic England. In particular, the repairs to the War Memorial, whose stolen plaques were substituted with temporary printed versions affixed in the wrong size, design, placing and material. Undertaking such poor repairs to a listed structure, and allowing the centenary of the end of WW1 to be marked in this way is shameful to the memory of the gasworkers that served. Before the developers should be allowed to demolish the gasometers, it is vital that they compile a detailed schedule of the intended techniques to keep the Hall safe from the demolition happening only 10 metres away.

The developers had the option to request a listing enhancement from Historic England, thus clarifying the legal status of the curtilage, and preventing this last-minute wrangling. Carrying out works without listed building consent is a criminal offence, as any responsible developer is aware, so SGN, Kier & Arqiva were unfortunate in committing to a plan that was unlikely to be approved.

Does Julia have any first hand knowledge of who carried out the temporary repairs? There are many well-respected bodies who may have had a hand in this temporary repair.

And to correct this specific statement - accusations that there is shame does not lie in the nature of the temporary repairs. It specifically lies in the theft of the solid brass original plaques from the memorial by rogues who deserve everything that is coming their way. These were stolen at a time when there was widespread thefts of this type across south London and south-east England. Replacement of these types of plaque to the original design and specification is costly and time consuming.

The remainder of the commentary in the post is disjointed and does not relate to the application for the development proposed by Kier. The Planning Inspectorate cannot scrutinise the details of the rejected application and can only examine the legalities of the decision and conformance to planning regulations.

The demolition matter is no longer part of this scrutiny. That matter was settled when LB Lewisham issued its consent to the Prior Notice on 11 July 2018.

That decision point is behind us and is not subject to review in this process.

The over-emotive targeting of organisations and condemnation of them is not justified. Less benign organisations might view some of them as being actionable. They will remain part of the public record having been submitted.

It would be prudent to recall that accusations about St Philip Neri school had to be withdrawn and apologies made.

[Growsydenham]

Those following this may be interested in new paperwork published by the council in relation to the application, to be discussed at a forthcoming council meeting.

http://councilmeetings.lewisham.gov.uk/ ... Report.pdf

It's about the legal advice the council has received, as they prepare to defend the councillor's decision to oppose the redevelopment. The planning officers originally recommended it go ahead, before the councillors decided against, which means the council could face damages if the planning inspectorate upholds the appeal.

The legal advice says that the decision to refuse was flawed on two grounds: air pollution and retail density. As such, the council only plans to defend two other grounds for refusal - traffic and historic setting.