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

[JGD]

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..

[TredownMan]

Coverage in News Shopper:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/s ... clnk&gl=uk

Does anyone really believe that if a developer claimed it would be economically viable to turn the gasholders into housing like Kings Cross (it's not), that Sydenham Society would support the plans? Or would they claim it's too tall/wrong colour bricks/too much traffic/wrong shaped windows, like they do for every other development in the area?

[TredownMan]

Also: if the councillor would like to stop referring to how the gasholders "survived Luftwaffe bombers" that would be welcome. It's the sort of irrelevant absurdity that gives these conservation campaigns a bad name.

[parker]

Also: if the councillor would like to stop referring to how the gasholders "survived Luftwaffe bombers" that would be welcome. It's the sort of irrelevant absurdity that gives these conservation campaigns a bad name.

This is hilarious. Something on this forum encited laughter

[TredownMan]

Also: those gas holders must be eight storeys tall.

Imagine the reaction if you tried to build to that height now! They’d “loom over in an unneighbourly fashion” and “spoil the visual amenity”. They’d certainly be deemed “out of keeping”.1

It’s one rule for storing gas, another for housing humans...

[stuart]

Imagine the reaction if you tried to build to that height now! They’d “loom over in an unneighbourly fashion” and “spoil the visual amenity”. They’d certainly be deemed “out of keeping”.1

Absolutely. I find it totally appalling that SydSoc is not campaigniing vehemently that the site be instantly returned to its earlier incarnation for watercress cultivation.

Now that would be really put back the green into Bell Green

Stuart

[JGD]

... the site be instantly returned to its earlier incarnation for watercress cultivation.

Now that would be really put back the green into Bell Green

Stuart

Would that have to be a high level proposal ?

[mosy]

The gasholder frames have the advantage of being non-polluting or causing pollution (i.e. don't increase traffic). They also allow a vision of beyond, rather than yet more walled in "built up area" feel. For themselves, I have no fondness only worry about what comes after. I'm sure the history could be represented by e.g. lattice directional or history signboards, bench seats, bus shelters and even litter bin designs if the will were there.

However, I don't live on top of them. My main concern is the knock on effect of potential extra traffic pollution. Plus a desire to see something that isn't more business park which is declining anyway with online shopping. Mmm water cress. Could always turn the holders into the first inner city multi-level hydroponic veg-growing plant. "Plant <- see what I did there?

[The Clown]

Ala Thanet Earth?
Love that idea!

[stuart]

My main concern is the knock on effect of potential extra traffic pollution.

An assumption, not a given.

For many people living in Sydenham it is less distance than going to Anerley plus there is a better public transport option. Those seduced from Savacentre's higher prices and declining ethical standards - its exactly the same footprint.

I don't take kindly to an organisation that encouraged folks to drive to our high street misleading playing the green card to try and stop us shopping at an Aldi in our own town. A leadership with a bit of a record in trying to stop businesses they don't personally like coming to Sydenham despite what other people (the majority?) would wish to use.

Stuart

[perryman]

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.

[owlwise]

Hi All,

Just to update you that after writing to Councillor Best about my concern about the demolition I received a response yesterday from Geoff Whitington who is the Senior Planning Officer (South Team) at Resources & Regeneration Directorate, Lewisham Council (Geoff.Whitington@lewisham.gov.uk). He says:

"The current Prior Notification application is being considered by officers, and a decision is due this week.

In early 2017, Historic England were asked to statutorily list the gasholders (ie Grade II Listing) - they referred to the large number of gasholders and the increasing standardisation in design, the threshold for special interest on a national level being necessarily high, with only 16 designated examples in the country. It was considered that the Bell Green examples were not more exemplar than other listed examples of gas holders found in London and the rest of the country, and therefore Historic England declined to statutorily list the two gasholders.

The gasholders were formally awarded locally listed status by the Council on 25 October 2017 at Mayor and Cabinet following a nomination. The Council’s adopted criteria for local listing includes: Historic Interest; Architectural Interest; and Age or Rarity. I must advise however that unlike Grade II status, a Local Listing does not protect structures from demolition."

My thoughts:

What is the point in having a Local Listing if it doesn't protect it from demolition?

Where else are there Listed gas holders and why shouldn't the Sydenham ones be Listed?

So what if it does increase the standardisation. There aren't many of these structures left in South-East London.

More people should write to Geoff if they really want to save these structures for future generations to appreciate.

I implore you to. Cheers.

[stuart]

Where else are there Listed gas holders and why shouldn't the Sydenham ones be Listed?

Surely South East London's most iconic gasholder overlooks The Oval, hence known around the world and IS LISTED. Rightly so imho.

So what does Sydenham's pair bring to the party? I am really struggling here to see what could justify the cost and the steralisation of space that could actually be useful to both this generation and the next.

This question keeps being asked but not answered. So what's to dispute in Geoff's wise words?

Stuart

[JRobinson]

as far as I understand it, locally listed changes the planning rules slightly, such that what might have been deemed as permitted development, now needs an agreed planning application. One such permitted development is demolition - which previously SGN could have done without planning permission, just a notice of intent with enough warning, and then doing it. Now that it's locally listed, as I say, as far as I understand, they can't just demolish, they have to seek permission first.

obviously, they wouldn't just spend the money demolishing it (previously) if they didn't have plans for development, selling the land on, or some way to make money from it, so leaving it there was the better option. Now presumably they want to get the demolition done, and planning for an empty site will be much easier.

It is my hope that they don't get agreement to remove the structures, and that if they do, then they get full impact of local opinion when whatever they plan for the site starts rolling, else there's been no point in challenging the original plan, or locally listing them, or any of the previous work. should have just let them do what they like, which of course is why there's a planning department, exactly so people can't just do what the hell they like.

[stuart]

Jon - haven't you ducked the question why keep?

Concatenating that with its future use - which would be another planning decision - is just being obstructionist. And yes it would add value to Sydenham instead of being a dead space. It is important, like steam trains, that a few iconic gas holders are kept to remind future generations of 19C industry. But would you campaign to save every steam engine and that, say Southern Railway passengers to pay for an engine they can't use?

Nope, if some committed enthusiasts want to run a profit making steam railway - that's fine. If SydSoc want to propose turning our gasholders into a theme park and put in the seed money then great. But failing that or another viable alternative I really can't see rhyme or reason to consider the Bell Green jobbies as 'special' and worth keeping.

Stuart

[mikej]

I must say I agree with Stuart on this one. I don't think the gas holders are particularly valuable.

[TredownMan]

I guess like so many planning disputes it’s not really about the gasholders at all.

It’s about control, who “runs” the area, and who needs to be “consulted” and give their approval before anything changes.

[Robin Orton]

We were told at the SydSoc AGM this evening that two peregrine falcons have recently taken up residence on the gasholders and appear to be raising a family. That should slow things down nicely.

[perryman]

Why keep?

Well it seems quite a few people like them. They are a land mark and some find them attractive.
Over £20m was spent on that twisty iron statue/monstrosity outside the Olympic stadium, and the designers thought it had merit. Compared to that, the holders are absolutely beautiful.

Historically they might not be unique nor a national treasure, but nor were the Greyhound or FH Pools. But locally they are all important historical structures.

In deciding whether this should go ahead, Lewisham planning need to weigh up what is being lost and what is being gained - except they cannot do this as SGN are not declaring what they want to do with the plot. What is being gained is a fenced off area of heavily contaminated land.
I hope LP refuse the request as SGN are clearly perverting the planning process.


The owners will feel they have rights in removing structures as they see fit to maximise returns, but if they are just moving out, then surely they have a responsibility to return the land back to its original state?
Gas companies have made fortunes on this site for 100+ years and inevitably contaminated the soil in highly toxic carcinogenic materials to considerable depth.
If the aim is to remove all their mess, as that is the environmentally responsible thing to do in such a highly populated area, then I'd certainly support that, but that is not the point of this exercise at all.

As part of the potential decommissioning, Lewisham planning should demand a full survey of the extent/depth/type of the contamination and following that demand the details of the plans SGN have to resolve the problem, especially as housing is likely to gradually encroach on the periphery of the industrial park, (just as it does to all parks) and just 'sealing' the poisons behind a barrier of clay might be OK for open plan retail/car parks, but we need to have much higher standards if people are potentially going to live on top of this pollutant in unventilated little boxes.

I'll stop now.....

[The Clown]

Have emailed Geoff.
Perryman - your post was very relevant, and welcome.
Whether retained or demolished, the land needs to be sorted out properly and something of equal architectural interest and benefit to the local area built to replace it.
We need to see this as an opportunity.