Your final para is a very intelligent and astute interpretation of trends.
There can be no assumption of yet another increase in traffic destined for bricks and mortar retail outlets - killer point.
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).
3 Likes
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.
It strikes me that many of the positions on this are not necessarily binary and need drawing out separately. One could be in favour of developing the site but against the Aldi plan. One could also be happy with the rejection of the plans but not with the representation offered by councillors and the civic societies.
If there has been a failure in the public consultation process, that needs to be addressed, whether we support development at the site or not. It’s an important issue that maybe deserves its own debate.
5 Likes
Plainly put - and with sage-like wisdom.
Particularly on your binary comment - for the first time in all its development stages, I found myself supporting this application contrary to my positions on earlier phases.
But getting the parking sorted out around the local streets would be the final part of a long running jigsaw for which we have hoped a solution would emerge going all the way back to 1993.
Our household started out neutral on the gas-holders and Aldi. It has changed because of this misplaced desire to retain them at the cost of killing the local benefits.
2 Likes
Well put @RachaelDunlop.
There are several points here, all of which are significant and probably warrant their own topic.
Repliers - I’d recommend this tip: How to: Reply as a new linked topic (with optional quoting)
Unfortunately I did not(((. English is my second language and as much as it is easier for me to speak and think in English, unfortunately it is not as good as I would like it to be…to my shame. Colloquial English, idioms and jokes are probably my weakest part. If you see me writing smth funny and out of context, it is probably I missed smth when reading.
However, having said all above, the amount of pests the gas holder give home to is quite scary. I sit on the bus stop waiting for a bus sometimes and these big fat rats running a metre or so far are disgusting plus birds, their dropping, rubbish pulled out of bins by them… It is all unhygienic. Retail shops would have solved the problem partially.
Having read the rejection points, I find them very stupid and unjustified and people who made decisions based on that are seen as outdated miserable people at least.
‘Rat running’ in terms of cars, because of the traffic build-up, well… how many traffic lights are there?? One set where gas works are, another set at the ‘round about’ one set where Sainsbury’s petrol station and the road from double becomes single going under the bridge…of course there will be traffic. It is not the retail, it is the traffic light signal system, road system wrong and bridges are narrow, they need widening.
The problem now is retail has a no-no, the site is not suitable for housing. So the site will be left like it is now and we are in 21st century when 800mph trains are the reality. Those stupid decisions dont take us forward, they keep us in the past thus make us less attractive and competitive to the world.
1 Like
Actually I don’t think I did get an invite to the meeting earlier this month (although as an objector I may have got a letter). I was aware of it from the Sydenham Society e-newsletter, however, I didn’t actually attend.
The meeting I was referring to was months ago organised by the Sydenham Society with a packed meeting full of people opposed to the plans. (I also attended the original meeting organised by Kier).
I did get a letter inviting me to the council meeting on Thursday (standard for all people who have written in objection and I posted details on this site for others to know about) and went along as I was intrigued to find out which way this application would go - it wasn’t an easy decision in my opinion - but planning applications do come down to a binary choice for councillors and all rejected the application.
In making these decisions the councillors take on a quasi-judicial role and must act according to local and national planning policy, and they are not meant to be swayed by local politics, strength of numbers, or any other factors. On this occasion I was pleased that they agreed with all the points of objection made by the Forest Hill Society.
In terms of suitability for housing, the site is no less suitable than the housing above Sports Direct. The ground is contaminated, but that doesn’t mean flats cannot be built, particularly above ground floor level. Some retail units can sensibly co-exist with housing above, but Kier made clear that their client (Aldi) did not wish for this to be the case, and that only residential would not be viable (which is surprising to me as I thought it was the best way to make money from land in London, but Kier understand the finances better than I do).
My hope remains that Aldi take the vacant site in Sydenham town centre and that a better mixed use (residential and non-residential) development could be built on the site of the gas holders, without impacting the historic context of the Livesey Hall and without adding to the decline of our high street - which I’m a little less keen to write-off than some proponents of this development.
1 Like
It is interesting that despite the thinly veiled alternative suggestions there is an underlying objection to Aldi. I suggest if it was a Waitrose that was proposed the outcome would have been different.
Residential development where significant clean up of the site is required needs a high return, the Kings Cross flats as previously stated fetch a lot of money, I doubt flats inset in the gas holders in Bell Green would not acheive any where near 700k.
So the site will remain an eyesore, on road parking will persist and the resulting traffic delays will continue and the high street will decline. I wait to be proven wrong.
1 Like
If it is the site where the co-op shop was, I dont put much hopes. There is Lidl not far from there, they are rivals and look very similar in presentation , quality and prices. Aldi will not make any money there, and they wont go next to each other.
Much as I love Waitrose, I still don’t want another supermarket on that site. I’d like to see a better thought out development, possibly including housing (although I agree it might be prohibitively expensive). I also want to see everyone taking better care of the existing site and not see rats!
1 Like
I think you are right (although I wish you weren’t). The planning considerations would be exactly the same for an ugly warehouse containing Waitrose or M&S but, if I’m honest, I think there would be fewer objector to a shop that many people would see as making a positive contribution to the area (despite the traffic, pollution, and other issues).
I would like to think that I (and the Forest Hill Society) would have taken exactly the same approach to the planning matters if it were a Waitrose rather than Aldi. However, I would have been much more unpopular for using the same arguments against Waitrose than against Aldi. But none of this speculation suggests that the planning decision was wrong.
1 Like
The problem is that without a financial incentive the site will continue to deteriorate, the council will not spend any money on it as they probably do not have any budget.
It would be exciting for the objectors/supporters for retention of the Gas holders to come up with the cash. Perhaps the societies can present something? Long held belief that you should never present a problem unless you have a solution.
2 Likes
Kat
Your written English comes across clearly.
I would apologise if I have contributed to any embarrassment and ask you to accept my assurance this was not my intention. The command of colloquial English, idioms and jokes is a life-long venture especially given the regional nature of many of their variations.
I am a Scot and we have a whole bank of them that are almost entirely indecipherable to the rest of the UK and I know of at least one NornIrn member on here who could provide a real wealth from that part of the country too.
Good luck with it.
2 Likes
No, not at all ))). It is all good, the second language is always a lifetime learning and funny moments are part of the proccess which are very enjoyable. It is all ok))) 
3 Likes
Michael
It flies in the face of solid recommendations from officers.
It is contrary.
It is a major botch up.
I have commented elsewhere on the patchy performance by FHSoc on these type of matters on their own area.
Commenting on our area without consultation of ward members is not only unrepresentative but has also damaged the prospect of local benefits immeasurably.
Phrases like unrepresentative, intrusive, invasive and non-transparent come to the fore.
1 Like
For @kat.standlake.point.
Here is a good one to start with.
Forest Hill Society planning people have more front than Sainsbury’s.
Explanation (if required) on request.
1 Like
I do feel pity that the opportunity for the site development has been missed. And the rejection will make it harder now for the future retail developement on the site because it has already had a no-no and a pile of rubbish will be there for anothet donkey years. What is the most infuriating is the Council saves the pile of crap, dirty, filthy, ugly, source of pests and takes away green recreational space from residents, people like us and many more others (the resident of the single standing house on our estate has received a letter from the council informing him that he has to give back his house, obviousely they are clearing site for their planned lark, the guy lived there for 30-40 years. Now the council saves the crap but willing to destroy the green recreational area people use and enjoy. HOW IS THAT FAIR??! If those council people decide to build on our estate, they will hear a lot of s*** from us and all of that will be recorded and go public definitely, without compromise.
2 Likes
And here is an image that is appearing on other forums and in the News Shopper today.
I can recognise some of the personnel in it. Additionally I can identify their respective roles in campaigning for this rejection.
But I do need a little more help, can anyone advise on how many are residents of Bellingham Ward.
Can only find one presence in the pic who co-incidentally is a member on here @pattrembath.
Being of a balanced outlook I could not possibly comment on whether there is a mis-placed air of triumphalism present or not in the image. Could I be wrong ?
This report outstrips every hyperbole possible.
It mis-reports that Kier’s have been prevented from knocking the gas holders down and that the groups’ members also wanted to protect the Livesey Memorial Hall - inaccurate and fantasy reporting of the worst kind. The Livesey Hall has never been under threat by any phase of t he re-development of this large site.
https://www.londonnewsonline.co.uk/people-power-saves-gas-holders/
It reports that “Historian David Stack, who had a parent and a great-grandparent who worked at the gas works, was another resident who fought to protect them.” It is however silent on where David resides.