When the Livesey has a function there are no spaces for drop-offs or to park cars to be had, in a significant radius around the hall, frequently for several hours at a time.
So as I said you and I are on the same thread about roads…
Vermin is not the responsibility of the LA here - I have tried in the past - it is private industrial and retail property and the LA refer all infestation issues to the owners.
The listed building issues are confined strictly to the hall and interestingly the perimeter wall (which is present only on three sides).and there are no mechanisms to police or enforce remedial action. As you live locally you will be aware of the wider impact of rubbish from the drive-thru - we get it on Perry Hill. Despite several campaigns and promises from the operator there is little impact on the rubbish levels either in its vicinity or on adjacent streets… This detritus is a significant contributor to the vermin problem.
I commend your view that the council will address issues in their own report. There is no driver for them to do so and no obligation on the council to take any such action.
650 people apparently signed the petition to retain these redundant structures supported by local councilors in a highly publicised presentation to the council. None of my neighbours were approached to add their signatures or express a contrary view, as indeed, we were not. No-one asked any of the important questions before signing it.
An FIO request may be required to obtain sight of it and to examine the validity and geographic distribution of signatories.
Disappointing!! Wether you are fir or against this site will just sit there for the next few years with nothing happening, hope Aldi will move to former budgens on the high street now to keep syd soc high street revival on track:smile:
Interesting. In Which? Magazine’s annual review Waitrose is ranked #1. Then M&S and in 3rd is Aldi tied with Lidl. Asda came bottom of the league this year.
If the heritage value of the site is a significant consideration as to why planning permission was not granted, I wonder if there’s scope for developing the gas holders similarly to how they are being reused in King’s Cross. I think aesthetically this is quite pleasing. Obviously would have to be residential, although I suppose a small supermarket on the ground level could work.
I believe the reasons are two fold, one the cost of decontamination of the ground, this being uneconomic due to the possible selling price of the resulting properties. The Kings Cross properties sell for upwards of 3/4 million which probably covers the development costs. This is unlikley to be the case in Sydenham.
Our faint hope lay in the potential for compromise in two significant points.
Whichever way the development went - the provision of additional parking to the rear of Livesey Hall for the exclusive use of their patrons is important. Whether that is 10,15 or 20 spaces, these spaces will ease parking and set down pressure on the streets around the hall on event days. For the meantime this will not happen.
Additionally to place double yellow lines all the way from the Selworthy Road/Perry Hill junction on the same side as the hall to the traffic lights at Perry Rise/Perry Hill junction and make this a seven day 24 hour no parking area with set down provision for the two homes affected by it. This would have the benefit of maximising the flow of two lanes of traffic for the entire distance (some 230 metres approx) from that junction to the lights.
Naturally the presence of the Bus Stop will mean occasional delays but the main impact will be that, particularly on Sundays when everyone believes parking restriction are not in play and bumper to bumper parking is the norm, there is a real choke point until you get to within approx 25 metres of the traffic lights.This compounds greatly the tail-back effect.
If this improvement can be implemented perhaps in conjunction with the SCOOT proposal the improvement for Perry Hill and Perry Rise could be significant.
As the development has been rejected, TfL/LB Lewisham would have to fund both this and the SCOOT proposal.
These concerns are substantially more relevant to those of us who dwell in the vicinity of the hall than the retention of the unloved pile behind it.
Seriously !!! . Lewisham Planning needs changes, drastic changes. All officers out, new officers in with fresh heads and realistic modern veiw of life. It is not ok to take down a pile of scrap but ok to take green space away from residents.
Do they have contact details where i can complain to?? Does anyone know them , pls share. It is absolutely absurd!!
Before you call for the sacking of the entire planning department (sorry too late) you might want to consider that they backed the scheme on balance. It was locally elected councillors who voted to reject the application for valid planning reasons. Having local councillors making these decisions ensures that the views of the community, as well as developers, can be heard - something that you might welcome whem it comes to your own backyard.
But if you feel that somebody needs to be fired over the decision then you should consider voting against the members of planning committee C rather than the planning officers.
Personally i think that on balance they made the correct decision, but the applicant can always appeal to the planning inspector if they feel that the councillors were wrong in upholding the restriction on retail imposed at the last planning inquiry. Had this been an application for new housing on this site then a different decison might have been achieved.
Concur wholly on your view that the officers backed the scheme - but then officers have backed every aspect of the schemes proposed for each phase of development of this large site.
I would question however that members voted to reject the application for valid reasons. Lets wait to see what they rejection notice says as you recommend in your earlier post.
Additionally SydSoc and FHSoc presented themselves to the authority as societies with a valid interest - about which we may agree to a limited degree - but neither party deemed it essential to seek to consult with the Bellingham ward residents.
Had they elected to do so, either or both parties could claim that their input was both balanced and representative of the whole community.
I think rather than a point against the FHSoc and SydSoc, this whole situation suggests to me that Bellingham needs its own society that is successful and influential like FHSoc and SydSoc.
Without wishing to be facetious, I think you should seriously investigate starting one yourself if it doesn’t already exist.
In normal circumstances that point would be recognised and well made - and in some circles would be welcome.
Do not consider your comments facetious. But it is not in my make up to lead civic societies. Nor does the absence of a Bellingham body give licence to other societies to make representation without consultation. And without apology, both SydSoc and FHSoc, whilst having substantive and good qualities in many areas of their activities, neither society does at all well with planning issues and both have patchy records in this area within their own fiefdoms.
I occasionally attend Bellingham ward assemblies. It is observable that the geography of the ward and its demographic make up is a peculiar stitch up that forms a patchwork quilt. For example the ward boundary inexplicable transfers across Perry Hill at the Houston Road Junction, runs down to Lescombe Road before traversing back across to the other side of Perry HIll. And the ward is split geographically by the railway.
I would respectfully invite others to express a different view but I have no sense that there is a cohesive or cogent rational that would support such a formation. Much as one might conclude that the ward was not served well by this absence.
I have commented on the protocol of a councillor from one ward leading on an issue within the boundary of another. The interaction between Chris Best and Alan Hall is curious. Why was Chris Best leading on a report to cabinet on a Bellingham ward issue when we have three ward councillors perfectly capable of doing so - that is the job we elected them to do.
I would further question why our own ward councillor attached himself to a campaign and petition initiated outside our ward and apparently did not seek consultation that was evident with his own constituents.
I think the make-up and validity of the petition require examination - how many Bellingham residents knew of its existence and then indeed signed it.
I have lived and worked with local councils in three countries within the UK and I have rarely seen any example of a breach of protocol of this type that would have been tolerated across parties and certainly not within the same party. Perhaps this is now the modern way - but is is not inclusive and in this case not transparent.
Bellingham ward councillors know their constituents. I would invite them as I did some weeks ago - get in touch and let us know what proposal(s) you have to hand that will introduce effective measures that will re-instate benefits that have been killed off by this botch up. We see one another often - even a discussion over a beer would have made a difference.
Quote: ‘were rejected by English Heritage for national listing’ says it all.
Levels of traffic above capacity
Unjustified objection. The car park that has been build in front of the current retail park can host maximum amount of cars and obviousely was granted planning permission to be built which took into the consideration the traffic at the time when the retail shops are busy and the adjacent car park is completely full. Adding axtra retail shops attached to the same car park wont raise any traffic above the maximum capacity of the existing car park for which the permition have been garnted.
and increase in rat-running
It is already infested with rats and birds, and all their droppings, bringing retail will keep the area clean from pests as retail is highly regulated in terms of health and safety, cleanloness is one of their priorities. They have official checks and ‘under cover’ checks throughout the year. It is easy to enforce shops and penalise them for incomplience.
levels of pollution from vehicles on roads above acceptable limits
Unjustified in connection with car park maximum capacity and connexted traffic for which permition is granted.
Contrary to retrictions on the amount of retail at bell green as specified in a planning inquiry and included in the core planning strategy for lewisham. And a detrimental impact on retail on high streets (not sure if that last bit will be stated explicitly)
High Street retail will be dying anyway because of the online shoping and the greedy landlords who ask massive rent for the premises. About 10-12 years ago to rent space in Lewisham Shopping centre in the most remote corner with little people passing by was about 250,000 a year. Of course, howthe high street retail will survive and make profit??
That isn’t what the planning assessment from the developer said. They expected an increase in traffic and the SCOOT system would have only partially limited the increase in traffic - beyond levels that were described as near capacity by the developer and highways department.
I attended a meeting at the Livesey Hall organised by the Sydenham Society and was surprised how many people were present, most of whom were residents from not too far away. There may have been much local support for the scheme but that doesn’t mean that there were not also a number of objectors living close by.
Chris Best did not present a report to the planning committee. She was hoping to speak as a local councillor with an interest in the scheme but she had lost her voice and it was actually Alan Hall (Bellingham councillor) who spoke as the local councillor and in opposition to the scheme.
I should also explain that rat-running is a reference to car using residential roads to bypass traffic queues rather than actual vermin. I can’t remember the figures but the highways authority had surveys that showed a massive increase in rat-running round Preistfield and Houston Roads since the building of B&Q, Next, etc (can’t remember whether it was 50% or 100% increase).
Thanks for the clarification on the presentation Michael - the council record must be in error.
Glad you got an invite - I did not get one to the council run event and officers have confirmed they did not comply with the normal notification procedures because of time pressure.
I had however attended the initial consultation meeting run by Kier and SGN at Livesey Hall and formally registered my interest there - but it wasn’t good enough to get me in on the council run session.
It may be the case that Kat gets the joke on rat-runs - but I am sure she can respond directly.
And I was responding to Kat’s observation of future trends - not the content of a submission in support of the application.
