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

[stuart]

I just really think as a community far more good could come from time and efforts focussed elsewhere on functional projects which benefit not only a greater number of people but a wider range of people from the community.

Yes - it would be good if SydSoc concentrated on projects that unite us rather than divide us. As JMLF noted there isn't exactly a shortage of such brilliant new ideas ready to be championed.

This would both boost SydSoc's popularity amongst the community it is instituted to support and, even more importantly, likely have more chance of a succesful outcome. The Greyhound is the living example of this. Kudos all round.

If we want a 'gas museum', as Mosy suggests, to capture and instruct future generations on our heritage then The Livesey Hall or The Library would be great places to house it and give these institutions more value to the community and beyond.

It may be that a S106 grant extracted from Aldi or the freeholders could finance this. In other words the demolition could aid the memory ...

Stuart

[Larky]

The museum is a great idea and should be in The Livesey.

Lets get rid of the gas holders!

[stuart]

It’s either upper or lower in my book - upper is anywhere above the Mayow Road/Sydenham Road junction.

Nope, us up in the rarified atmosphere west of the railway line look down on Mid-Syd. I know my place

[JMLF]

I’ve screenshot my comment and the ones following and sent them over to the Sydenham society as a penny for their thoughts - particular the idea of a small museum like/art exhibit in Livesy Hall (or elsewhere) chronicling the history of the gasholders. Would be a really lovely thing accessible and interesting to all ages, supportive of schools, those people already into history etc.

Not sure how often members of the society frequent the forum - I know it’s been an area of concern/discussion in the past - so thought send it to a few of the people their including chair and historian.

Have a lovely week all,

Jon

[RJM]

The museum is a great idea and should be in The Livesey.

Lets get rid of the gas holders!

I love museums, but there's a lot to running one of them and they aren't the easy solution for a building that it sounds like. For example:
What would their collection be, and where would it come from?
Where would it be stored to keep it secure?
Who would look after it? Volunteers? And if volunteers, then who co-ordinates that?
Who would handle schools visits, if schools are interested?
How would it be promoted to encourage people to visit - it would be a rather niche topic!

But above all, and the most important one, who is going to fund it?

[JMLF]

Ps: Other things, again personal opinion only, that would be more worthwhile putting the time and effort into - all of differing degrees of difficulty/feasibility but all more functional for the community:
- A splash park type of area in one of the parks (Home Park perhaps, bringing more people to the library/shops near)

- Similarly a skate park area in one of the parks

- Supporting the Sydenham gardens and some of the brilliant work they do including things around supporting Dementia, learning about nature and crafts.

- Getting a monthly market going that is successful and long-lasting

- Getting a traders association going to support the high street in terms of looks, events, other

I’m sure I could plough on and many of these ideas have cropped up before and no doubt will again. Just can’t get over with limited time and resources why the gasholders would take precedent over some of these things. More so when there are no plans to do anything with them.

Enough sounding like a broken record for now!

[stuart]

Could I add JLMF that the gasholders were responsible for the putrid air that blighted Bell Green. With those gone we have, perhaps, a bigger if less visible threat to health and wellbeing is the dangerously high level of nitrous dioxide bathing Haseltine School - one of the worst effected in London.

Measures to cut and mitigate emmissions should be a top priority. That all points to the gyratory which is a blot in so many other ways to the area. People have been pressing for this for years but no comprehensive plan appears to have been put together to give Sydenham a cleaner and more pleasant environment. SydSoc and local councillors should, perhaps, reconsider their previous promotion of creating and extending parking at the expense of pedestrianisation (unlike the more progressive Forest Hill).

Stuart

[nicknack]

The museum is a great idea and should be in The Livesey.

Lets get rid of the gas holders!

Oh so it would be like Crystal Palace Museum, photos of something that's no longer there. Except in that case it burned down, in this case we demolished it.

[nicknack]

Measures to cut and mitigate emmissions should be a top priority. That all points to the gyratory which is a blot in so many other ways to the area. People have been pressing for this for years but no comprehensive plan appears to have been put together to give Sydenham a cleaner and more pleasant environment. SydSoc and local councillors should, perhaps, reconsider their previous promotion of creating and extending parking at the expense of pedestrianisation (unlike the more progressive Forest Hill).

Stuart

Totally agree, that whole area is basically a main road very difficult to cross for pedestrians, and then a massive car park with some retail sheds. So what do we decide to do? Increase the traffic, build more retail sheds & more car parking.

[John H]

It’s either upper or lower in my book - upper is anywhere above the Mayow Road/Sydenham Road junction.

Nope, us up in the rarified atmosphere west of the railway line look down on Mid-Syd. I know my place

Recent figures suggest Lower Sydenham is in the top three areas in London for the rate of house price increases. "Middle" and "Upper" Sydenham are not in the running!

[TredownMan]

In this letter, the Sydenham Society acknowledges there is a “housing crisis” in London, and suggests there’s a case for developments in our area of up to 200 houses.

https://alanhall.org.uk/2018/07/02/syde ... direction/

An analysis I wholeheartedly agree with, and one that I’m sure will be reflected in the groups interventions in all future planning cases - won’t it?

[TredownMan]

Oh! but what’s this!

Another housing site - a single family house, in a traditional style, on an infill site that’s currently a car park that the SydSoc decided was Not Appropriate.

Once again, would it not have been polite to consult and inform the local community via the website or news letter?

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

[JayB]

Oh! but what’s this!

Another housing site - a single family house, in a traditional style, on an infill site that’s currently a car park that the SydSoc decided was Not Appropriate.

Once again, would it not have been polite to consult and inform the local community via the website or news letter?

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

But surely you don't imply that there is one set of rules for Kirkdale and quite another for Lower Sydenham! I'm just waiting for them to try and relocate the poundstretcher down to us too.

[TredownMan]

Well some people might wonder whether Syd Socs support for housing appears only when they want to further a pet project. And then when a real opportunity occurs to back good housing...

[Tim Lund]

Cllr Alan Hall posted this on Monday

The Sydenham Society have written an objection to the plans to demolish the locally listed Bell Green Gas Holders in Lower Sydenham.

Following hot on the heels of the Victorian Society’s objection here, the Sydenham Society go further and request an Article 4 Direction by Lewisham Council. An Article 4 Direction would remove permitted development rights and protect the heritage assets. A fuller explanation by Historic England states that Article 4 directions may be used to require planning permission for the demolition of a non-designated heritage asset (such as a locally listed building outside of a conservation area), by removing the demolition rights.

SGN the owners of the gasometers spotted a Peregrine Falcon during a wildlife review and immediately called in their drone as the Pergrine Falcon is a protected species.

https://alanhall.org.uk/2018/07/02/syde ... direction/

This is in spite of the evidence already found that the peregrines were not nesting.

If he and SydSoc are serious about peregrines, there is some advice from Greenspace Information for Greater London here

http://downloads.gigl.org.uk/website/pe ... advice.pdf

It would surely make sense to allow SGN to demolish, build new housing on the site to the same height, and use a tiny fraction of S106 for artificial peregrine nesting sites

[TredownMan]

Indeed. The Cllrs blog is not a balanced representation of the expert report which concluded the peregrines are essentially irrelevant to the planning process and present no reason not to demolish.

It’s unfortunate for the planning process that expert guidance is not reported in a balanced and accurate way by politicians. Or have we “had enough of experts”?

[JGD]

SydSOC's call for an Article 4 direction is significantly misplaced and is mis-directed. These are extracts from Historic England's Advice Paper. The Italics are my responses.

Article 4 directions are used to control works that could threaten the character of an area of acknowledged importance, such as a conservation area.

The site of the Gas Holders is not in a conservation area.

However, article 4 directions might assist in the protection of all other heritage assets (particularly conservation areas) and help the protection of the setting of all heritage assets, including listed buildings.

The Planning Authority's own officers have stated in their responses to Kier's rejected Planning Application that the setting of the gas holder area is an industrial waste land in very poor condition and is detrimental to the overall setting of the Livesey Hall which is a listed building.

The demolition work and site remediation will significantly improve the look and feel of this location in and advance of any potential development..

Article 4 directions may be used to require planning permission for the demolition of a non-designated heritage asset (such as a locally listed building outside of a conservation area), by removing the demolition rights under part 11 of the GDPO.

Government has issued guidance on when and how to make an article 4 direction (2). It says that local authorities should consider making article 4 directions only in those exceptional circumstances where the exercise of permitted development rights would harm local amenity, the historic environment or the proper planning of the area.

There are no such exceptional circumstances where the authority should consider making an Article 4.

The demolition proposal does NOT harm local amenity, the historic environment or the proper planning of the area and in fact, demolition and remediation work DOES enhance the proper planning of the area.

[Larky]

Gosh a lot of people medalling.


I love history and all that surrounds it but the gas holders serve no purpose and need to be removed.

[The Clown]

That’s not what is happening here. The point is to use the mechanism to secure something else of value for the area, not just another supermarket or similar addition which lacks ambition.
Why should people in Sydenham not be more visionary and have both ambition and expectation of their town planners. We will live with any development decision for a long time to come.

[Tim Lund]

That’s not what is happening here. The point is to use the mechanism to secure something else of value for the area, not just another supermarket or similar addition which lacks ambition.
Why should people in Sydenham not be more visionary and have both ambition and expectation of their town planners. We will live with any development decision for a long time to come.

I guess the mechanisms in this case are getting the structure locally listed, and now an Article 4 direction. In another recent case - The Windmill - it was getting it declared an Asset of Community Value. In the highest profile case, The Greyhound, a conservation area was declared, almost overnight. So what happens then is that the owner has to decide what they do about it. That does not in itself secure something else of value for the area, because it's the site's owners who will need to pay for the vision and ambition.

Town planners, as employed by local authorities, are almost completely irrelevant here. The ones working on policy are largely implementing centralised directives, while the rest just check that actual proposals, which will be paid for by the developers, tick the policy boxes. In addition, they are very stretched, like pretty well all local authority staff.

I'll spare the Forum my speculations as to how it could be done better.