Could Bell Green development be good for the high Street?

[Paddy Pantsdown]

Sensible move. There's an election in the offing. Why waste time with people in SE26 when their votes don't count in his re-election. Tell them you're on holiday - that'll shut them up for a while.

Who said our local councillors aren't smart!

Surely smart enough to realise:

* A lot of SE23 people visit here
* A lot of SE26 is in Forest Hill Ward (Sydenham Hill)

Not a time to be too parochial.

[Muddy Waters]

Forest Hill Cllr Dave Whiting says he is on his hols until 15 August.

Guess what, he is spending some of his holiday time in Plaza Sydenham! We should be honoured that he has come over the border and is spending this special time with us.

Rumour has it that he has been expounding a theory that Sydenham High St should reduce to 40 shops.

Perhaps Cllr Whiting would like to confirm that this is his opinion and , if so, which of Sydenham's 180 (approx) shops should cease trading?

[Paddy Pantsdown]

That's very interesting Muddy. Its has been many years since I was expounding on social regeneration (albeit in Croydon) and I'm now well out of touch with recent economic & social theory on the subject.

So I went to see how qualified Mr Whiting was on the subject. Well there is very little here: http://www.councillor.info/Lewisham/dwhiting.aspx so is he hiding his abilities under a bushel?

Where does one find our councillors' CVs?

[nasaroc]

If you visit the site listed above and select the item listed "My Politics" you come up with a huge blank page. I wonder why?

[Jane73]

Isn't the real issue that we all want Sydenham Road to offer a good mix of shops, bars & cafes? A place we all want to visit & bring our friends to. I'd like to know how we're going to make this happen.

Having read all these well written postings (which seem to me to be entirely fair), I was expecting to find something from our local councillors about how Sydenham High Street will be developed in the future.

I'd like to think that our councillors appreciate just how fantastic it is to have a place that people care about so passionately. How about a council led initiative that harnesses and uses some of this energy? You never know, it might just make the future seem a little bit rosier than it does right now....

[stuart]

Indeed!

Just a reminder that those who care (and fancy a pint) can start tomorrow night at The Greyhound 17th @ 6pm.

The new landlords are inviting us to share our thoughts on revitalising what should be Sydenham's premier pub. See:
http://forum.sydenham.org.uk/viewtopic.php?t=308

[Bryan]

I agree with Jane73 - it's a pity that our local councillors haven't yet joined in the debate, especially those whom I have criticised in my earlier postings. The number of hits on this site demonstrate the level of local interest.

Still, we do have a promise from Councillor Whiting that he will post a response to my comments. I'm sure that we all look forward to that.

Bryan Leslie

[Bryan]

A quick update.

The Mayor of London has decided not to direct the Council to refuse the Bell Green applications. Shame, but the GLA's consideration was seriously flawed. For example, they took no account of traffic congestion issues.

The Sydenham Society is now making representations to the Government Office for London asking that the applications be called-in for a decision by John Prescott. If the applications were to be called-in then there would be a public inquiry. If not called-in, then the Council will grant formal outline permission.

Meantime, we still await Councillor Whiting's promised response to my criticisms of him and of our other local councillors, in respect of Bell Green. I do hope that Councillor Whiting will keep his promise.

Bryan Leslie

[GLOBAL THINKER]

I have just checked on Lewishams new website (which is rubbish by the way) and it's strange that there is no news about bell green which will be a major development. Can the Sydenham Society demand a meeting with local councillors to find out exactly what they are doing to put Sydenham on the map? Reading the posts on this forum if I were a councillor I would be making more of an effort to contact concerned residents or at least reply to some of the criticisms.

[Pat Trembath]

The Sydenham Society has had a number of meetings with local councillors over the past 12 years during which the threat of a retail park at Bell Green has hung over Sydenham and Forest Hill like the Sword of Damoclese. The Society would be the first to acknowledge that the derelict site at Bell Green needs regeneration but has, over this long period, argued loud and long against largescale warehouse style retailing.

Unfortunately, none of the local councillors in the 4 Wards surrounding Bell Green has taken it on themselves to become involved in the public discussion about possible alternative methods of developing the site and how these could be taken forward.

All local councillors seem to have accepted the option of a retail park as the only option. Not one of them has been seen to question the increase in traffic, pollution, effect on local high streets together with possible loss of jobs and the perceived reduction in the general quality of life throughout the area that a development of this size will undoubtedly have.

However, there is a meeting of the "Sydenham Road Regeneration Partnership" on Thursday 15 September at 7 pm at the Naborhood Centre, Sydenham Road. This will be chaired by Cllr Chris Best and is open to anyone interested in the future of Sydenham. Why not come along?

A similar meeting for residents of Forest Hill, chaired by Councillor Susan Wise, will be held on Thursday 22 September at 7 pm at Holy Trinity Church Hall, Sydenham Park. This is open to all residents in Forest Hill interested in the future of Forest Hill.

[Bryan]

To be fair to Councillor Chris Best, she did on one occasion facilitate a meeting between the Society and Council officials to discuss possible alternatives to a retail park at Bell Green. And she has not attempted to stifle discussion of Bell Green at meetings of the Sydenham Road Regeneration Forum.

But that is about as far as Councillor Best went. She has never displayed much sympathy towards the opposition of the Sydenham Society, and local residents, to a retail park. In my judgment she has never much interested herself in the issue nor acquired any kind of detailed understanding of the arguments involved. That is why I have previously argued that she has badly let down local residents in respect of Bell Green.

I agree with Pat Trembath's assessment of the collective conduct of our local councillors.


Bryan Leslie

[Bryan]

For those still watching, I've contacted Councillor Whiting who tells me that he intends to respond to previous postings but still has some work to do on his reply.

Watch this space.

Bryan Leslie

[Bryan]

It's beginning to look as though Councillor Whiting has decided not to provide his long promised reply to my criticisms of him and other councillors over Bell Green. He did promise that when he returned from hols on 15 August he would prepare a response as his first task.

Councillor Whiting cannot plead the complexity of the issues surrounding Bell Green as an excuse for further delay. It's really not that difficult.

Q1- Would an increase in traffic on Sydenham Road of about 10% (Saturday peak period) be good or bad for the town centre?

Q2 - Would Perry Rise residents be happy or unhappy about an increase in traffic on Perry Rise of around 13% (Saturday peak)?

Q3 - Would a reduction in spending in shops in Sydenham Road of almost £500,000, annually, be good or bad for the town centre?

Q4 - Is Councillor Whiting aware that the Council has a formal policy of reducing car travel in order to reduce traffic congestion ?

Q5 - If Councillor Whiting is aware of the Council's policy why did he not refer to that policy during the Committee meeting that approved the Bell Green development?

If Councillor Whiting thinks that I over-simplify matters (and I would plead just a bit guilty to that) then he should post a response giving us all the benefit of his thinking.

Bryan Leslie

[Bryan]

I think we can now safely assume that Councillor Whiting has decided not to post his long promised comments about the Bell Green development.

Assuming that Councillor Whiting hasn't been run over by a bus
or otherwise become incapacitated, then my guess is that he's found himself unable to construct reasonable arguments in favour of the development.

Any other suggestions that might explain Councillor Whiting's self-imposed purdah

Bryan Leslie

[admin]

Any other suggestions that might explain Councillor Whiting's self-imposed purdah

Councillor Whiting has put his head above the parapet once (which is, bless him, one more than other councillors despite many friendly invitations).

I deduce he felt that he would be set upon by the multitudes playing the man rather than the issues. Politicians should have a thick skin but I guess he thought there was more to lose than to gain. Or may be our local councillors don't trust the editorial integrity of ST?

In this I think they are mistaken.

I feel it a shame that they should not see ST as a small opportunity to combat the growing democratic deficit that leads to greater cynicism about local government and catastrophically low turnouts at elections.

Harriet Harman, in a paper on eDemocracy, suggests that MPs should, amongst other things, present an annual report of their activities to their constituents and teach citizenship in local schools. Should local councillors not do something similar?

I would have thought that using this website and others to explain what they are doing, explaining the difficulties and the reasons for their decisions and occasionally taking on board some ideas from their constituents would begin to build a fund of goodwill.

I'm sure I, like you, would disagree with much of what they might say and you would have the advantage of giving them a hard time about it. But in the end when we go to the ballot box we ourselves have to choose between a group of people none of whom are we in complete agreement.

Basing the choice solely on the party badge is not working unless you believe in 30% turnouts. We need more visible beef in our councillors (and prospective councillors) arguing their case.

I repeat again the ongoing invitation to all local politicians to use ST & STF to communicate with considerably more Sydenham readers than bothered to vote at the last local election.

A free webpage on a topic of your choice is only an email away ...

[Bryan]

The Sydenham Community Regeneration Partnership, chaired by Councillor Chris Best of Sydenham ward, met on 15 September. About a week before the meeting the Sydenham Society asked Councillor Best to place the Bell Green development on the agenda, as one of the first items to be taken, and to allow plenty of time for discussion of the Council’s controversial decision to support the developer’s proposals.

Councillor Chris Best ignored the Sydenham Society’s request. She placed Bell Green near the bottom of the published agenda with about 5 minutes allotted for discussion. So much for her political courage.

On the night of the meeting, after pressure from the Sydenham Society, Councillor Best, with evident reluctance, placed Bell Green up the agenda and agreed to allow rather more than 5 minutes for discussion. During the discussion the Sydenham Society criticised Councillor Best and indeed the other local councillors for the Sydenham ward – Councillor Liam Carlisle and Councillor Marion Nisbet - for failing to support the very large numbers of their constituents who had objected to the developer’s proposals. The Sydenham Society argued that Councillor Chris Best bore a special responsibility because she was chair of a Council body devoted to the regeneration of Sydenham.

For the most part Councillor Best, in defending herself, relied on Councillor Dave Whiting, drafted in for the occasion from Forest Hill ward (!), to speak up for the Council’s decision. However, one point that Councillor Best did make was that she had received quite a few letters from local residents about the Bell Green development. The meeting was evidently intended to infer that the letters supported the development. Maybe they did, but Councillor Best took refuge in ambiguity by neither revealing the number of letters that she claimed to have received nor their general contents. She refused to allow time for anyone to question her.

I have now asked Councillor Best for more information about the letters to which she referred. I’ll reveal all in a further posting.

As for Councillors Carlisle and Nisbet, their general arguments, so far as I could understand them, was that not everyone shared the Sydenham Society’s views about the Bell Green development. Fair point. But neither councillor displayed the slightest understanding of the Bell Green development nor did they provide a coherent explanation of their sustained neglect of the issue over a number of years.

Finally, I must return to my old pal Councillor Dave Whiting. He managed to wheel out some new arguments in favour of the developers – by which I mean arguments that were not contained in the officer reports to the Council’s Planning Committee when it approved the proposals. These new arguments derived from fresh briefing prepared by the Council to prop up their decision, after the event.

Councillor Whiting suggested, among other ill-informed comments, that the traffic increase that the developments would generate on the local network would be around 1-2% (above existing levels). Not even the officer reports advance such a figure.

Councillor Whiting chided me for politicising my objections to the Council’s decision. It is true that I have not criticised any non-Labour councillors. That is because the one non-Labour councillor representing a local ward - Councillor Peake, Lib Dem, of Forest Hill ward – is relatively newly elected. All other local councillors, who happen to be Labour, have been around for years and have had years in which to get involved in the future of the Bell Green site, but have chosen not to do so.

In any case, Councillor Whiting’s criticism of me appears to be based on the absurd notion that somehow the decision of the Council to support the developer was based on apolitical considerations. Let’s be clear about this. Lewisham Council has been Labour controlled for decades. Historically, the decisions that the Council have taken in respect of the Bell Green site have been taken by Labour controlled planning committees working within a general policy framework laid down by a controlling Labour Group. I see absolutely nothing wrong with that process – that’s the way that local politics works. But when a Labour controlled Council takes a controversial decision then its Labour councillors, who are professional politicians, must expect some blow-back. That politics for you Dave, so please don’t complain. The real political point is this. If Lewisham Council had been controlled by other than Labour would the policy and planning decisions in respect of Bell Green been any different and would local councillors have paid more attention to the fears and concerns of local residents?

Readers can answer that for themselves. But the result of this Council’s handling of the matter is that we are faced with the prospect of a colossal retail development on the doorstep of Sydenham which will drain resources from Sydenham and other local town centres and which will generate a major increase in traffic. In reaching its decision the Council has engaged closely with the developer but has not listened, at all, to the views of local residents. I think it brings great discredit to the Council and to our local councillors who, above all, should have spoken out on behalf of local residents.


Bryan Leslie

[Ella]

Bryan

I absolutely agree with every word you say. I think our local councillors are in a 'comfort zone' they have been around along time and feel no threat to their position. Perhaps at the next local election all those people who have objected to the Bell Green development will make their feelings known.

[Paddy Pantsdown]

Bryan/Ella,

I agree with you both that our councillors' defence is weak. Surprisingly weak. What I do not understand is why the councillors ducked your difficult questions - but didn't ask some in return.

Because there is an arguement to be made on their behalf, and I'm embarrassed to have to raise it - just to see whether it would stand scrutiny of yourselves.

It goes along these lines ...

The site is terribly polluted. The cost of returning it to commercial/industrial use is high. Returning it to residential use would be significantly higher.

It is not an attractive site for residential use - which means low cost (and presumably low profit) housing may be the only option. A requirement for social housing may damage the business case further. In other words - putting aside the retail proposal - do you believe there is a viable low risk possibility of low cost housing built on very high cost ground to sell or rent at the bottom of the market and make money without a significant subsidy from the taxpayer? Is such a subsidy available?

Hence is it not surprising that the retail proposal is the only one on the table? If the councillors believe as you and I do - that almost anything else would be better on that site than the current development - what are they to do?

Because, it seems to me, the councillors' choice is between a rock and a very hard place. The retail proposal will bring the land back into use, generate some useful revenue to the council, provide some jobs. Indeed the councillors (as Chris Best did) say that they did extract some social housing on the less polluted part.

In other words it is better than nothing? Nothing is a SSSI for plants & animals to thrive on poisons. Yes the retail development does have downsides - immediate increased congestion around the site - but they could use the arguement that because of under provision of retail within the borough - this currently extra generates traffic travelling out of borough - so overall the effect may be neutral over a wider area.

The two questions I ask are:

* Where is a viable costed alternative with someone willing to take the risk?

* Why the councilors do not make more of the apparent absence of a viable alternative?

Hopefully I will now be showered with more light than heat from both sides!

[Bryan]

Glad to read, Ella, of your similar views.

Paddy Pantsdown - you make some excellent points. I will respond, but I'll leave it for a couple of days just on the off chance that some of our local councillors might like to join in.

Bryan Leslie

[Bryan]

Paddy Pantsdown asks -

‘Where is a viable costed alternative with someone willing to take a risk?’

The quick answer is that, as far as I know, no viable costed alternative exists. However…

Housing is the most profitable use for land – so said a barrister, recently, who specialises in planning cases. In the case of Bell Green the equation is of course complicated by the contaminated nature of the site. Taking the necessary steps to remediate the site for housing would, possibly, significantly dent the developer’s desired profit margin. I say “possibly” because I simply don’t know. I have seen nothing among the Bell Green papers to suggest that the Council has ever taken a close look at the arithmetic of housing on the Phase II site.

The reason for that is clear. During the consultation process leading up to the adoption of the Council’s current Unitary Development Plan, British Gas asked the Council to amend their policy so that housing could be allocated as one of the uses for the Bell Green site. It seems reasonable to assume that British Gas saw housing on the site as a realistic (and profitable) option for development. Nevertheless, the Council refused to amend its policy, saying that the entire site was too contaminated.

The Council have always taken that line and by doing so have, in effect, prevented any serious exploration, either by themselves or by British Gas, of the possibility of a large scale housing development on the site. The Council’s policy has always been for retailing, plus some light industry, on the site.

How is it then that the Council have approved a housing development on the Phase III site? The reason is not because the Council listened to the views of local residents (as falsely claimed by Councillor Best at the recent Sydenham Forum meeting). Rather, in discussions with them the GLA – who had major concerns about the scale of the proposed development and who had the power to direct the Council to refuse the Bell Green applications - told the Council that their concerns could only be outweighed by incorporating housing into the development.

In a trice the Council abandoned its ‘no housing’ policy and negotiated the modest housing scheme on the Phase III site. In doing so the Council and B/Gas also looked at the possibility of housing on the Phase II site. That was discounted for a mix of reasons which principally involved design considerations (which could have been overcome, I imagine, by a half-way decent architect). Commercial implications were also cited, although without elaboration.

The point of all this is to argue that, notwithstanding the contaminated nature of the site, it has always been within the policy gift of the Council to broaden the mix of uses on the Bell Green site so that the emphasis was on a development that posed less of a threat to existing shopping centres, was less traffic generating, and met a real social need (more worthwhile than bigger and better shopping malls) for housing. That is not an argument for no retailing on the site, but it is an argument for less retailing. Having established such a policy, British Gas would have followed. The Sydenham Society has long proposed that approach to the Council and offered development possibilities that included but also went beyond housing. There was always a realistic alternative, but the Council always discounted the Society’s view.

You also ask, ‘Why the councillors do not make more of the apparent absence of a viable alternative?’.

Our local councillors ought themselves to reply. But of course they won’t. Engaging in a debate in which their views can be scrutinised is not for them. More fundamentally, our local councillors have never interested themselves in the future of the Bell Green site, despite the Sydenham Society, over a period of years, pressing them to do so. One result of that is when they come under fire for their failure to support the views of local residents they don’t know enough about the issues involved to put forward the rock and a hard place argument, or indeed any argument.

One final point that is worth picking up – the suggestion that councillors might argue that, overall, the traffic effects of the development might be neutral over a wider area (than Sydenham/Forest Hill). That is not an argument that has been advanced by officers when advising councillors. Nor is it an argument used by the traffic consultants appointed to advise the Council. What is firmly on the record, however, is that 50% of trips made to the retailing element of the development would be primary in nature i.e. trips new to the network. So, lots of brand new traffic on the road.

Bryan Leslie