Bell Green development - change in public leadership?

The place for serious discussion, announcements and breaking news about Sydenham

Moderator: frenzarin

Post Reply
JGD
Posts: 744
Joined: 5 Feb 2018 11:39
Location: Perry Hill, SE6 (yup that's Catford)
Contact:

Bell Green development - change in public leadership?

Post by JGD »

JGD in another post wrote:
13 Sep 2019 11:23

It's time for change SydSoc. The Society has not displayed sufficient expertise or adequate resources to make meaningful progress. The failure to invite joint leadership or to offer to stand down as the "sole" body leading on a project and let those communities who live next to the site appoint a Project Board that can run the project is also a sign of a failing body.
There was moderate attendance at the Bellingham Ward assembly on 13 February where the principal agenda item was the allocation of NCIL monies.

Our three elected members attended, as did a council planning officer. There was an opportunity for updates to be given to the meeting on local news and issues.

It was a pleasant surprise to have JRW make a short presentation.

At first it appeared that an update to SydSoc's Masterplan for the Bell Green Urban Renewal project was about to be made.

However Julia announced that a fresh initiative was required to form a new civic group to lead on Bell Green development matters.

Of course, this is not the first time this proposed formation of a new group has been articulated in public.

Annabel McLaren made the same proposal to form a new group at two meetings in the first quarter of 2019. One at the Railway Tavern at which there was less than half-a-dozen Bellingham and Perry Vale residents present and at the Bellingham Ward assembly where she described how such a group could be constituted but forgot to invite the assembly attendees to sign-up for it. It was not made clear whether an equivalent presentation was ever made to the Perry Vale ward assembly.

A third such announcement and appeal was made by Cllr Liam Curran at the Livesey Hall on September 12 where the first draft of Discourse Architecture's Master Plan was publicly presented. Once more because of a communications problem where no direct approaches had been made to Perry Vale or Bellingham residents and thereby very few residents attended from those wards. And once more two key parts of the target audience were not present.

This proposed formation of this new group is necessary so that Lewisham planners can validly accept proposals for consideration for inclusion in the draft Local Plan from a properly constituted local group. This requires that 26 local people sign up for the new group and Julia advised that 18 signatories had been secured so far.

And that would appear to be the sum total of progress in forming such a group in the passing of a year.

Julia made a number of key points:

On questioning from the floor, Julia advised that this was not a SydSoc led proposal. SydSoc's position with regard to their aspirations and stated objectives of setting the agenda for future development and their intention to lead and consult with Lewisham and Bromley councils went unexplained. Interestingly it became clear that whilst Lewisham's drafting of the Local Plan was still in its early stages, SydSoc, despite its alluding to directly feeding into it, had not done so.

There is no funding available to support the formation of a new group or setting of its objectives or to reach out to appropriate residents in substantial numbers in the different wards.

Julia is offering to lead this group.

Julia proposes that the rejection of a Travis Perkins development be a key part of the new group's activities.

It is now unclear what view SydSoc and Discourse Architecture have on this revised proposal. It could be held (and is so by residents of the other wards) that SydSoc failed to make any meaningful contact with Bellingham and Perry Vale ward electorate. SydSoc failed to meaningfully invite or secure people who could engage in a cross-ward leadership of a properly constituted Project Team or Board.

Have SydSoc and Discourse learned the lesson that a project team, borne of public consultations cannot pre-determine what matters be included or excluded from the scope of the project now that the gas-holders are gone. It would seem Julia has not, given the prominence of her rejection of any Travis Perkins development before her new group has deliberated on what its objectives should be.

These failures aside, the positions require clarification.

Has the Discourse Master Plan led by SydSoc been abandoned in favour of a project lead by a newly-formed civic group ? Has the Master Plan been revised to reflect developments for the vacant portion of the site where the gas-holders were located ?

Is the Discourse and SydSoc project leadership to be transferred to the new group or is it to be run in parallel to it or indeed in competition with it?

Is there any other possible combination that has any measure of success attached to it ?

A week has passed and no comments have appeared. Can anyone make a commentary or provide detailed explanation ?

GRP
Posts: 10
Joined: 5 Feb 2020 13:27

Re: Bell Green development - change in public leadership?

Post by GRP »

Not sure I understand this masterplan. It looks like a lot of new flats in place of the retail park?

What would be the timeline? Presumably the retail units are let on long leases (they might have 10 years left on the lease?) so you'd have to get them out then persuade whoever owns the retail park to sell up... Is any of this realistic or just pie in the sky?

Re Travis Perkins, doesn't the current local plan have this area down as retail to "finish off" the retail park? If so how exactly can you object to or refuse the planning application? They would appeal and win, and it would end up wasting a load of council money.

Growsydenham
Posts: 101
Joined: 27 Jan 2018 09:23
Location: sydenham

Re: Bell Green development - change in public leadership?

Post by Growsydenham »

A cynic would suggest it may be about proposing hypothetical housing (at the bottom of the hill, in 20 years time, if a load of businesses and landowners agree to it) while objecting to viable new housing at the top of the hill and anywhere else today.

GRP
Posts: 10
Joined: 5 Feb 2020 13:27

Re: Bell Green development - change in public leadership?

Post by GRP »

Must admit, I'd never thought of it like that!

I assume(d) it was somewhere on the scale from visionary to optimistic to naive to self-indulgent waste of time* (*delete according to personal preference) but had never considered any more cynical possibilities.

JGD
Posts: 744
Joined: 5 Feb 2018 11:39
Location: Perry Hill, SE6 (yup that's Catford)
Contact:

Re: Bell Green development - change in public leadership?

Post by JGD »

Well time flies doesn't it.

Approaching almost four weeks and no clarifications have been issued publicly by any of the "engaged" parties around JRW's announcement at the Bellingham Ward assembly. SydSoc, Discourse and JRW have made no utterances on this subject since February 13 2020.

JRW on one of her Twitter accounts continues a very specific campaign and makes appeals to and pronouncements about @Len_Duvall, @elliereeves, our #ClimateEmergency, declarations being flouted by @LewishamCouncil, @AldiUK store 100% being powered by fossil fuel and @TravisPerkinsCo moving to Bell Green Retail Park.

People will have views about the presence of the generators but it is not clear that Lewisham Council has that many powers to deploy against a private company running emergency generators on a temporasry basis on its property (leased or otherwise).

Whatever intel about Travis Perkins has been shown to JRW, it is asserted that the reason for this move is for Travis Perkins to avoid the extended ULEZ zone at the South Circular. No insight is provided as to the source of this additional factoid, making it difficult to assess the accuracy of it being a factor in the decision to make the move.

It is evident that Tool Station, a Travis Perkins company has had a presence on this location since the last development was completed. My recall is imprecise - but that opening must have happened a couple of years ago.

So what are the issues, if there any substantive ones, with a five-and-a-half-day operation expanding its existing presence on site.

https://twitter.com/SGasworks/status/12 ... 83456?s=20

These campaign matters are all grist to the mill of how and by whom a Master Plan is to be led and managed and what objectives are to be set for it.

It seems a further measure of patience is necessary whilst answers are awaited.

stuart
Posts: 3290
Joined: 21 Sep 2004 10:13
Location: Lawrie Park
Contact:

Re: Bell Green development - change in public leadership?

Post by stuart »

I note that Twitter account appears to make great play of Aldi running on 100% fossil fuels because of its local generators.

But think for a moment. Reconnecting Aldi to the National Grid increases demand by the same amount. How would that be met? Solar/Wind/Hydro/Nuclear is all going into existing base demand. All the marginal demand is being met by fossil fuelled generators (mostly gas) and will be for many more years. The effect is the Aldi demand would be increasing generation 100% (or very close) fossil fuels. Net change = zero.

Nobody can be more supportive of non-fossil fuelled generation than me - but this sort of opportunistic emotional led news does the community a disservice. It's close to fake news in my book. But don't I remember this Twitter account running scare stories that turned out to be untrue?

Stuart

Post Reply