New Marks and Spencer at Bell Green

[broken_shaman]

I read the documents.

Given the issues with the numbers of vehicles travelling to this site, and the associated pollution (and litter) I was expecting to see some sort of analysis of the potential impacts of opening another food store on journeys made to the site.

But the only analysis is below in quotes, which doesn't consider a potential increase in journeys made by car at all and seems to focus on whether changes are needed to accommodate more vehicles... According to this document, opening up a new food store, which seems to be quite an attractive proposition for people locally, will have a neutral impact on transport. Surely it will fail quite quickly if it doesn't attract more customers.

Or are they all just going to pop in on their way to Aldi or Sainsburys? I find that hard to believe, but time will tell. Not that it matters now... One always hopes the local authority will deal with planning applications diligently and consider the impact on the local area, without the need for people to state the bleedin' obvious.

56 For this application the use and occupier (Currys) of the unit is existing and, even with the proposed mezzanine floor area, would result in an overall reduction in the floor area. Therefore, it would have a neutral impact on the existing transport and highway circumstances of the retail park and its locality.

57 There are existing vehicle accesses into the retail park and no change to that provision is proposed. A service yard, as previously described, is located to the rear of the existing retail terrace.
58 In terms of delivery and servicing access to Unit 5A and 5B will be located at the same point outside of Unit 5B and goods will be taken to the respective service access for each unit. Unlike the existing operation of Unit 5, deliveries to the Unit 5B will be via a separate service area from Unit 5A.

59 The Applicant has provided a swept path analysis of the service yard and it demonstrates that units 5A and 5B would be able to operate in the proposed arrangement. The Applicant has agreed to a condition that no delivery / collection vehicles shall arrive at or leave the site outside of the hours of 06:00 hours to 23:00 hours seven days a week.

60 Given the overall reduction in floor space of the operational unit and given the operator from this site (Currys) is existing, then Officers consider that for this application it would not be reasonable for a Travel Plan to be secured for the proposed development.

I look forward to shopping there anyway. I will walk there.

[stuart]

I look forward to shopping there anyway. I will walk there.

Good luck. Navigating the maze of fenced pedestrian refuges and crossings to get across the gyratory is not fast or fun. Cycling through it is not for the faint-heated.

The whole complex is designed to make you drive (and then complain about the traffic).

Let's hope it doesn't negatively affect the Sydenham Road Lidl. The only easily walkable food store since the Co-op deserted.

[broken_shaman]

I walk from the north end

Could go on about the junctions, railings and lack of bus or cycle lanes forever, but deserves a dedicated thread really.

[perryman]

stuart - the 'park' is of an out of town design and so there never was any consideration given to pedestrians or cyclists. And the planners might argue that this was deliberate so as not to impact the high street.

This would be fine if there was a similar range of shops on the street, but there isn't.
express shops tend to be expensive and lack choice. And the one remaining superstore, lydl, was looking to relocate a couple of years ago - it could be leaving.

So the plans failed and the bell green safety issues should be addressed. This was an opportunity. missed.

[stuart]

Yes Bell Green perfectly delivers on its original concept.

Except if we are moving back to the 15 minute town concept we have a problem. Return to the High Street relies on only Lidl as the sole supermarket (aoppose premium priced convenience stores). If Lidl should close a difficult smaller store that concept disappears completely.

Politicians speak warmly of supporting the High Streets but every decision like this endangers it.

[broken_shaman]

I would like to see the entire area redeveloped into housing.

There would still be shops at ground level! Ideally a new village, but still room for supermarkets with housing above.

So, not just 'local' supermarkets, but probably smaller ones that serve the local community rather than people from miles around. The future is probably home delivery from large warehouses too, with local shops for those last minute purchases and other services. With a central square or something that can hold a xmas tree and community events and markets and stuff. And a leisure centre to replace the bridge (that would be ideal behind The Livesey, with the building as an entrance point, with community facilities and the sports ground around the site regenerated).

And if the Bakerloo line ever arrives, it would be possible to have a less car dominant development. Developments can release cash too to fund such things.

They did this at Nine Elms, although they built a load of wonky weird towers. I prefer the look and feel of the East Village in Stratford's 'Olympic Park'. High blocks, with a few towers and wide open spaces in between, with parklets and water features etc... But with more shops. East Village kinda relies on being right next to Westfield.

This is all a main reason I'm against the gas holder site plans, because they want to build a fairly large tower, which will likely mean any future development is made up of even bigger towers and I don't see why they get to decide what height the boundary of the site will be.

We need a plan for the whole site. A masterplan. Guiding development in a joined up way. Efforts to do this as a local community (neighbourhood forum) were well and truly scuppered by the council, leaving us with nothing and reliant on developers to make it up themselves. These retails parks are getting redeveloped all over London, so its just a matter of time.

Or they'll list the site as an example of out of town shopping architecture........

[Just John]

Ther is no question that work needs to be carried out to improve the traffic flow and parking situation at Bell Green but that was not the point of this thread. I note someone also advocates building housing on the site. Good look with that. There is a reason the former gas works was not developed for residential purposes but the idea of flat above retail units is worthy of consideration.

On the issue of parking and traffic flow, it seems to me those issues can both be remedied if the net zero handbook is thrown where it belongs i.e. the dustbin. Rather than waging war on motorists the objective should be to ensure traffic flows freely and thereby reduces pollution dramatically. A simple redesign of the road system and the construction of a flyover over the railway is all that is needed. There is plenty of room to enable that. There should be a bus lane passing through the two sites with stops outside the new development and also Sainsbury's. The car parks should then be the whole of the central area with, perhaps, a second floor for parking. That option would enable the addition of smaller retail units with residential units above.

The present road layout is ludicrous. The consequence is traffic takes a short cut through the Sainsbury car park to try to avoid the traffic queues on the Southend Lane. It is delberate bad design. I could wax lyrical on how relatively inexpensive road improvements to the road system would alleviate pedestrian problems and also help motorists but I know it would fall on the deaf ears of the disingenuous phoney green brigade.

The most effective way to reduce pollution is to enable traffic flow and Local Authorities have a statutory duty to do that.

[syd]

Ther is no question that work needs to be carried out to improve the traffic flow and parking situation at Bell Green but that was not the point of this thread. I note someone also advocates building housing on the site. Good look with that. There is a reason the former gas works was not developed for residential purposes but the idea of flat above retail units is worthy of consideration.

On the issue of parking and traffic flow, it seems to me those issues can both be remedied if the net zero handbook is thrown where it belongs i.e. the dustbin. Rather than waging war on motorists the objective should be to ensure traffic flows freely and thereby reduces pollution dramatically. A simple redesign of the road system and the construction of a flyover over the railway is all that is needed. There is plenty of room to enable that. There should be a bus lane passing through the two sites with stops outside the new development and also Sainsbury's. The car parks should then be the whole of the central area with, perhaps, a second floor for parking. That option would enable the addition of smaller retail units with residential units above.

The present road layout is ludicrous. The consequence is traffic takes a short cut through the Sainsbury car park to try to avoid the traffic queues on the Southend Lane. It is delberate bad design. I could wax lyrical on how relatively inexpensive road improvements to the road system would alleviate pedestrian problems and also help motorists but I know it would fall on the deaf ears of the disingenuous phoney green brigade.

The most effective way to reduce pollution is to enable traffic flow and Local Authorities have a statutory duty to do that.

I agree. Catford has been transformed by getting rid of that one way system.