What a shame so we have some iron structures thst serve no purpose and if the planning committe really believe they can save the high street, just goes to show how out of touch they are. Online shopping is going to hit record levels small shops unfortunately cannot compete with national chains save for a few specialists that will persist for a time. I am just being a realist time will tell.
3 Likes
Do not say this out loud to any one especially SGN.
Lewisham officers commented on the local listing paper that they could nor recommend removing a “permitted development” entitlement from SGN which in normal circumstances would mean that SGN could in the course of normal operation, demolish redundant structures…
Officers reported this could potentially mean it would set precedent for other property owners to call for compensation is similar circumstances. Not least because there are no funds to compensate SGN to refrain from executing their permitted development right to demolish the frames of the gas holder.
The local listing does not prevent SGN from exercising their right to demolish.
Interestingly as I said earlier a more precise and realistic definition of the detrimental impact on the historic setting is defined by officers at 6.28 in their report:
6.28 The current condition of the application site is neither welcoming or conducive to the public use of the already developed areas of the gasworks site. The site is desolate, characterised by a scaffolding yard; a hardstand area for motorcycle training; an overgrown bowling green that has been unused for many years, unsightly galvanised steel fencing around the gasholders; and overgrown hardstand areas for which their only function is to provide access for SGN workers. It may therefore be argued that the site itself is detrimental to the eastern setting of Livesey Hall, and that the redevelopment as proposed would provide an opportunity to enhance the appearance of the site, and its relationship with Livesey Hall as a listed building.
1 Like
Good. Who needs another corrugated supermarket? Less traffic, less focus away from independent businesses, some cool looking iron things stay.
1 Like
Not to mention the retention of a desolate site, characterised by a pile of post industrial cast iron scrap (not wanted by Heritage England - even for spares), a scaffolding yard; a hardstand area for motorcycle training; an overgrown bowling green that has been unused for many years, unsightly galvanised steel fencing around the gasholders; and overgrown hardstand areas for which their only function is to provide access for SGN workers and is a rubbish strewn rat infested hazard.
Sweet. The rats are big - historic tour parties will be interesting. Does anyone know how high they can jump ?
Has this been said before ?
3 Likes
James - could not agree more.
We are clearly on the same thread about roads.
My partner doesn’t want an Aldi - the site should have an Asda or Waitrose presence in her view.
Love your proposal on control and enforcement - perhaps you can enlarge on where this resource will be obtained and who will finance it.
I know, I know the devil’s in the detail.
Here’s what SE23.lifers most wanted to see: [Poll] New development in Bell Green - what would you prefer?
1 Like
James
We live on this same patch.
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.
No clear winners there or should that be either or both.
No worries que serra, serra
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:
1 Like
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.
3 Likes
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.
2 Likes
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.
5 Likes
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.
Perhaps we could lobby our ward councillors about those traffic suggestions? I think they’re a good idea!
1 Like
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!!
1 Like
Morden? A little too realistic, perhaps?
1 Like
I changed the incorrect word, thank you for pointing out.
2 Likes
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.
4 Likes
Michael
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.
Which their submissions certainly were not.
And this rejection is a major botch.
Did Morden engage in the consultation too. Can you see the gas holders from there ?
Or was it the all-seeing eye of Mordor - the SydSoc bods all seem to think they have one.