Barratt Homes / gasholders site: make your comments NOW!

[JRW]

Please make your comments now. Deadline is imminent.

The Bell Green Works development proposed by Barratt London consists of:
Six blocks of flats, grouped on three plots.
Block D = 14 storeys.
Block C = 10 storeys.
Block A = 9 storeys.
Block F = 8 storeys.
Blocks B & E = six storeys

New homes: Total of 262 new flats. 37 flats (2 and 3-bed) will be at ‘London Affordable Rent’, and 22 flats (1 and 2 bed) available for shared ownership. That means that 22.5% of the flats are classed as ‘affordable’.

'Car-free’ development. NO PARKING ON SITE except for 8 blue badge parking spaces, covering only 3% of the number of the units. See: DC_23_13385-CAR_MANAGEMENT_PLAN-1243035.pdf. Tfl grades the site as having a Public Transport Access Level of 2, on a scale from 0 to 6a. Very poor grade for a car-free development.

Impact on the viability of the Livesey Memorial Hall. Block E is very close to the back of the Livesey, overlooking its outdoor smoking & bar area. 40 bedrooms will be affected by noise nuisance; Barratt’s solution is to say residents can’t open their windows, and should rely on mechanical ventilation. Will these flats be allocated for ‘affordable housing’?

Masterplan with Livesey site. The masterplan covering both Barratt and Apex sites. HOWEVER, no agreement has been made about coordinating decontamination works, or ground levels. ‘Livesey square’ actually crosses two different ground levels, Barratt’s site being several feet higher than the Livesey site, which is grade II listed. Lowering the Barratt site ground level would expose contaminated ground. Barratt's plan is only viable by agreement with Apex.

Design Quality. Barratt refused to return to Lewisham’s Design Review Panel, who last reviewed the scheme in November 2022. The DRP then witheld its support, and asked them to return with specific changes. These comments weren't addressed, and this application is substantially a re-submission of their previous, unacceptable application.

Consultation quality. Barratt has deliberately submitted documents that are difficult for the public to read; the Design Access Statement, was a single document, and now split into 17 separate pdfs. The most directly-affected neighbours have not been informed of the application.

FIND OUT MORE, & HAVE YOUR SAY:

Go to https://planning.lewisham.gov.uk/online-applications/ and search for GAS WORKS.
Click on Documents.
The Design & Access Statement volume 6 is a useful summary. Sadly, the developer has made the plans difficult to access, but if you look at this, you have a good grounding. https://planning.lewisham.gov.uk/online ... 249599.pdf
Email your comments to planning@lewisham.gov.uk. Remember to give your full name and address (including postcode) and quote ref. DC/23/133854.

Speak now or don't whinge......

[RJM]

Thank you for the reminder - and also the pointer that we can email comments. The comment box on the planning site is very limited!

[JRW]

DEADLINE FOR COMMENTS EXTENDED!

It's just been confirmed that the Barratt scheme consultation period has been extended, because of the late delivery of some documents onto the planning database. Closing date is now 9th February. Lewisham will also continue to accept comments past the deadline, right up to the Planning committee date.

HOWEVER, the sooner your comment is lodged, the better chance of convincing Barratt to stop timewasting, and get down to redesigning their scheme properly.

The latest discovery is that Barratt's design showing Bell Green Works as a virtually ‘car-free’ development, with no parking on site, other than 8 blue-badge parking spaces, is wrong. In an appendix, it is revealed that TfL demands that an additional 18 blue-badge parking spaces be available on demand, to cover 10% of the total units. Barratt admits that providing these spaces would have an impact on the public realm, which is an astonishing understatement. It would compromise the green space off Alan Pegg Place, and the green linear path. It would remove a large proportion of the play facilities, and all of those connected to the southern blocks.

262 flats, and all their requirements simply won't fit in the available space. It would end with compromising on disability provision, or the green and play spaces. Probably both.

[Just John]

Amazing how the choice of words can corrupt the public interest.

The Authority changed its rules for parking provision from ONE parking place per residence to "less than one parking place per residence". The intetntion was quite clear. Developers could develop if they could not quite meet the one per residence rule.

Instead, Lewistan has chosen to misinterpret the rule to mean "far less than one place per residence". Someone needs to challenge them in the courts. What they are doing is overcrowding sites.

[JRW]

Amazing how the choice of words can corrupt the public interest.

The Authority changed its rules for parking provision from ONE parking place per residence to "less than one parking place per residence". The intention was quite clear. Developers could develop if they could not quite meet the one per residence rule.

Instead, Lewistan has chosen to misinterpret the rule to mean "far less than one place per residence". Someone needs to challenge them in the courts. What they are doing is overcrowding sites.

I've no idea what you're talking about; GLA rules are relevant here, and it's about disabled parking only. If you wish to take something up with Lewisham, feel free, but please don't confuse the issues here.

[broken_shaman]

I think he's arguing against car free developments.

The issue here is that the area has quite poor transport links (for an inner London borough).

The stations are all a fair walk away and the lines don't transport east and west very effectively. Bus capacity is restricted by the railway line and low bridge and they are, of course, reliant on the roads being uncongested.

I think we've all probably sat on a bus on Catford Hill watching people walk past faster as the bus sits in the long queue to Catford Bridge.

There are no bus lanes or cycle lanes. Even the painted ones.

So it is unsurprising that we see bicycles on pavements, full buses sat in traffic and a general reliance on car ownership.

It is, therefore, unlikely that residents in the new buildings will all have no car, simply because nobody gave them a car parking space. These cars and vans will be parked elsewhere, either on unpatrolled double yellow lines on the retail park or surrounding residential roads. Because we don't have a CPZ.

The other flats, Orchard Court etc... do have some parking, however clearly not enough for the residents, as cars are continually parked on the double yellow lines on the access road to Sainsbury's. Developments near Lower Sydenham (Bromley Council) also have car parking.

Of course, I would like to see a reduction in car use, but I don't think this is an effective way to do it. Far better to improve the alternatives. Imo.

Barratt, it seems, are simply trying to maximise profit (understandably) and car parking space is a cost.

Underground storage would mean they had to do something with all the toxic waste buried in the ground there, which means nothing grows. Go have a look. There are two bare sections of earth where all the toxic waste they imported has been used to fill in the two holes of the gasholders.

They're not planning to clean up the land either. Probably hoping to seal up all the waste under paving and garden space with some sort of base underneath.

[PHDR]

I have checked the portal but can’t seem to see a date for when the decision will be made. Does anyone know?

[broken_shaman]

I heard there were a lot of problems with the application and there is supposed to be a meeting with the developers at some point. I wouldn't expect a decision for a while. It may have to go back to the drawing board.

[RJM]

Respondents to the planning application have just been invited to a meeting on the 26th about it, before it goes to the Council Strategic Planning Committee.

[alywin]

The latest discovery is that Barratt's design showing Bell Green Works as a virtually ‘car-free’ development, with no parking on site, other than 8 blue-badge parking spaces, is wrong. In an appendix, it is revealed that TfL demands that an additional 18 blue-badge parking spaces be available on demand, to cover 10% of the total units. Barratt admits that providing these spaces would have an impact on the public realm, which is an astonishing understatement. It would compromise the green space off Alan Pegg Place, and the green linear path. It would remove a large proportion of the play facilities, and all of those connected to the southern blocks.

That sounds familiar, especially the number 18 - I think that's exactly what the proposals for the Blenheim Centre in Penge say, that there must be an option to provide additional disabled parking if it turns out to be needed, and that this would be provided by eating into the very limited non-disabled parking available. Check the alleged PTAL rating for the site, because again the Penge developers have claimed a higher rating than is justified, in order to make the proposed development virtually car-free.

[broken_shaman]

Meeting tonight. 7:30 - 9pm, St Michaels Church, Champion Crescent.

[Plantingpotting]

Objections can be emailed to planning@lewisham.gov.uk

Here's my text for anyone who wants to copy/paste:

Dear Lewisham Planning Authority.

I am writing to strongly dispute the proposed development: DC/23/133854 - Land at former Bell Green Gasworks site.

This objection is grounded in several critical concerns regarding the potential impact on the local community and environment.

Firstly, approving this application would set a dangerous precedent for the surrounding area. It is my understanding that the council planners have intentions to redevelop the retail park with tall storey blocks. However, allowing a high-rise development at Bell Green would significantly contribute to the normalization of such structures in the vicinity. This would undoubtedly facilitate subsequent planning applications for tall buildings in the retail park, potentially altering the character of the entire area irreversibly.

Secondly, the proposed allocation of affordable housing within the development is wholly inadequate. With only 26% of the 262 units designated as affordable, comprising 37 units at London affordable rent and 22 units for shared ownership, this falls far short of addressing the pressing need for more council housing. It is essential to prioritise the provision of affordable housing to mitigate the housing crisis effectively. Instead, this proposal appears to cater primarily to private landlords, exacerbating existing inequalities in housing accessibility.

Furthermore, the character of Sydenham, as a suburban area, should be preserved. Residents, if given a choice, have deliberately selected to reside in a community characterised by lower density and absence of tall towers. The proposed high-rise development contradicts this preference, threatening the cherished open views of the sky that contribute to the unique appeal of Sydenham.

Lastly, there are notable concerns regarding the insufficient protection afforded to the listed Livesey building. Any development in proximity to such a historically significant site must ensure adequate preservation measures to safeguard its cultural and architectural heritage.

In light of these compelling objections, I urge the planning authority to reconsider the proposal for the high-rise residential development at Bell Green. It is imperative to prioritise the interests and preferences of the local community while ensuring responsible and sustainable urban development.

Thank you for considering these objections seriously.

[Just John]

Amazing how the choice of words can corrupt the public interest.

The Authority changed its rules for parking provision from ONE parking place per residence to "less than one parking place per residence". The intention was quite clear. Developers could develop if they could not quite meet the one per residence rule.

Instead, Lewistan has chosen to misinterpret the rule to mean "far less than one place per residence". Someone needs to challenge them in the courts. What they are doing is overcrowding sites.

I've no idea what you're talking about; GLA rules are relevant here, and it's about disabled parking only. If you wish to take something up with Lewisham, feel free, but please don't confuse the issues here.

You seem a little confused. The issue under discussion is the permission to overdevelop a site and make no provision for parking except for minimal disabled parking. This has been done repeatedly and each time the people moving in, far from being car less, simply choke the surrounding streets with their parked vehicles.

[Just John]

I think he's arguing against car free developments.

The issue here is that the area has quite poor transport links (for an inner London borough).

The stations are all a fair walk away and the lines don't transport east and west very effectively. Bus capacity is restricted by the railway line and low bridge and they are, of course, reliant on the roads being uncongested.

I think we've all probably sat on a bus on Catford Hill watching people walk past faster as the bus sits in the long queue to Catford Bridge.

There are no bus lanes or cycle lanes. Even the painted ones.

So it is unsurprising that we see bicycles on pavements, full buses sat in traffic and a general reliance on car ownership.

It is, therefore, unlikely that residents in the new buildings will all have no car, simply because nobody gave them a car parking space. These cars and vans will be parked elsewhere, either on unpatrolled double yellow lines on the retail park or surrounding residential roads. Because we don't have a CPZ.

The other flats, Orchard Court etc... do have some parking, however clearly not enough for the residents, as cars are continually parked on the double yellow lines on the access road to Sainsbury's. Developments near Lower Sydenham (Bromley Council) also have car parking.

Of course, I would like to see a reduction in car use, but I don't think this is an effective way to do it. Far better to improve the alternatives. Imo.

Barratt, it seems, are simply trying to maximise profit (understandably) and car parking space is a cost.

Underground storage would mean they had to do something with all the toxic waste buried in the ground there, which means nothing grows. Go have a look. There are two bare sections of earth where all the toxic waste they imported has been used to fill in the two holes of the gasholders.

They're not planning to clean up the land either. Probably hoping to seal up all the waste under paving and garden space with some sort of base underneath.

exactly, though I understand the pollution had to be dealt with before residential development could take place.