New Marks and Spencer at Bell Green

[Just John]

Wonderful news. A Planning Application is with Lewisham Council. The proposal is to split the useless Curry's in two and the half closest to B&Q will be a M&S Simply Food... Bigger than the one in Beckenham I think.

https://planning.lewisham.gov.uk/online ... APR_122288

[syd]

that’s great! We’re on our way to a Waitrose

[stuart]

that’s great! We’re on our way to a Waitrose

Steady lad!

[JGD]

A note of caution.

Despite a fairly widespread welcome from residents of Perry Vale, Bellingham and Lower Sydenham to the introduction of this new proposal from M&S, it seems bodies from outside our area are less content.

It appears FHSoc has taken to one of its old bad habits by submitting objections to planning applications which lie outside its area of benefit and where it has virtually zero membership from whom it can draw views and express meaningful and accurate comment about whether the scheme is desirable or not.

The document can be seen at https://www.foresthillsociety.com/post/ ... ell-green

This report/objection document authored by FHSoc titled "Planning: Objection of M&S Food in Bell Green" is difficult to interpret and has some out-of-date and interestingly odd observations at its heart, one of which is:

(It) fails to recognise the positive character of the existing gas holders or reflect its positive qualities in the scheme

The author of the objection clearly has not visited the site recently or they would have noticed that the gas holders have not been present for a few years now. This is one of several errors in the document.

This closing comment is incomprehensible - is there a hint of green-eye at work here in that M&S have elected to make internal alterations to an existing retail unit occupied by Curry's whose business model is moving away from large scale bricks and mortar.

Or does FHSoc hold a view that the area of Perry Vale, Bellingham and Lower Sydenham are not deserving of a new M&S outlet?

We would encourage retailed [sic] such as M&S Food to look for suitable locations close to Forest Hill and Sydenham Town Centres for new stores, which we are sure would be welcomed by residents.

FHSoc's Constitution makes provision for them to engage with incoming new businesses to our area. Perhaps someone needs to suggest directly to FHSoc about taking that simple, more positive, step and stop submitting negative commentary to our local council which might contribute to a rejection of the planning application being made on behalf of M&S and which has merit and enjoys widespread support in our patch.

[stuart]

Does SydSoc have a view that [deep breath] maybe more positive? In which case their very own attack dog would eat our northern cousins alive.

[syd]

Or does FHSoc hold a view that the area of Perry Vale, Bellingham and Lower Sydenham are not deserving of a new M&S outlet?

I believe so.

To object to creating jobs, with the cachet of an M&S in an area in need of regeneration is a bit fishy. FHSoc might be full of snobs.

It feels like another battle is required like the ones with the monstrosity and Nando’s

[syd]

that’s great! We’re on our way to a Waitrose

Steady lad!

I’m a dreamer!

[broken_shaman]

Opening up an M&S Food in a section of Curry's on a grotty retail park is not the regeneration I am looking for.

This retail park's days are numbered. The question is, do you want a load of high rise towers slapped on there or some sort of sensitive redevelopments with a village and a leisure centre and a transport hub etc...

It sounds as if it will be a windy, bleak set of towers (Lewisham Mk2) with not much in the way of shops if we let Lewisham decide.

[perryman]

Opening up literally anything on some or all of the disgraceful curries is a positive move.

FHSoc do have a point that a shop like this on the local high streets would give all the stores a lift, but M&S would have done their homework - a newish unit, relatively easy to convert/fit-out with delivery space at the back and plenty of customer parking space outside is very attractive.

What it doesn't have is passing pedestrian trade - customers who express type shops are designed to target. But once these tower blocks have gone up, any store in the 'retail park' will have a captive market of 10,000 carless customers.

I think there will be a few express stores in the 'park' - definitely another sainsburys - for the reason above plus it is sensible/essential to keep people's living space off the ground floor, so they dont choke out on carcinogenic fumes.

[JRW]

This is exactly what Saturday's community meeting is about. Lewisham's draft local plan ignores Bell Green entirely; it is missing from the hierarchy of shopping centres. Digging around in the background papers, I found the retail impact assessment doc is entirely about a redeveloped Bell Green as a threat to retail not only in Sydenham and Forest Hill, but in Lewisham and Bromley! The advice was to scale back Bell Green - and I say if so, can we talk about the tower blocks?

The meeting is 11am on Saturday 8th June at the Sydenham Centre, next to the post office at 44A Sydenham Rd, London SE26 5QX

Lewisham has let us down yet again. Having promised to notify residents of our meeting, they have now decided they won't. Plus, I have to pay £35 to hire the room, plus produce a certificate of public liability insurance. I'm OK about paying the hire fee if I know people are coming. I have publicised it, but don't have many rsvp.

Does anyone think this is OK? Does anyone know how to get the word out, or get public liability? Can you confirm you are coming? Email bellgreennf@gmail.com or dm me here.

Help!

[JGD]

If you feel the need to provide a response to Lewisham Council, you can record your views in one of two ways.

You can access the Lewisham Planning Portal directly and use an online form to make your comment.

This link can be used and if you use this online method you will have to login or register as a new user:

https://planning.lewisham.gov.uk/online ... APR_122288

Double check that you are responding to application DC/24/134364 Insertion of a mezzanine floor in Unit 5B in connection with the sub-division of Unit 5, Bell Green Retail Park, Bell Green SE26

Alternatively you can email planning@lewisham.gov.uk using the application reference "DC/24/134364 Insertion of a mezzanine floor in Unit 5B in connection with the sub-division of Unit 5, Bell Green Retail Park, Bell Green SE26"

For both methods, it is possible to make as long or as short a comment as you choose and it is acceptable to make a simple statement such as "I Support the application" or "I object to the application".

In the online form the Council requests that you specifically record your "Stance" in terms of whether you Object, Support or are Neutral about the application and it may be worthwhile making a similar remark if you use the email method.

Good luck to those who elect to make a comment.

[Just John]

If you feel the need to provide a response to Lewisham Council, you can record your views in one of two ways.

You can access the Lewisham Planning Portal directly and use an online form to make your comment.

This link can be used and if you use this online method you will have to login or register as a new user:

https://planning.lewisham.gov.uk/online ... APR_122288

Double check that you are responding to application DC/24/134364 Insertion of a mezzanine floor in Unit 5B in connection with the sub-division of Unit 5, Bell Green Retail Park, Bell Green SE26

Alternatively you can email planning@lewisham.gov.uk using the application reference "DC/24/134364 Insertion of a mezzanine floor in Unit 5B in connection with the sub-division of Unit 5, Bell Green Retail Park, Bell Green SE26"

For both methods, it is possible to make as long or as short a comment as you choose and it is acceptable to make a simple statement such as "I Support the application" or "I object to the application".

In the online form the Council requests that you specifically record your "Stance" in terms of whether you Object, Support or are Neutral about the application and it may be worthwhile making a similar remark if you use the email method.

Good luck to those who elect to make a comment.

I did so at the time I created this thread. Sad to see the reaction of the Forest Hill brigade. Remember, most of the local Councillors live in Forest Hill and they have a history of being very jealously protective of that suburb of Sydenham. That is why the South Circular rebuild never happened (after blighting many properties in Sydenham for years before they finally decided on the route through Forst Hill). I see they have revamped part of the scheme in Catford but without creating any of the necessary real road improvements. A scheme simply to let cyclists terrorise pedestrians in Catford!

If they had decided to tunnel beneath the Hill, at Forest Hill, the whole area would have been improved. They wanted to be cheap... so it was never built.

[Forester]

If you feel the need to provide a response to Lewisham Council, you can record your views in one of two ways.

You can access the Lewisham Planning Portal directly and use an online form to make your comment.

This link can be used and if you use this online method you will have to login or register as a new user:

https://planning.lewisham.gov.uk/online ... APR_122288

Double check that you are responding to application DC/24/134364 Insertion of a mezzanine floor in Unit 5B in connection with the sub-division of Unit 5, Bell Green Retail Park, Bell Green SE26

Alternatively you can email planning@lewisham.gov.uk using the application reference "DC/24/134364 Insertion of a mezzanine floor in Unit 5B in connection with the sub-division of Unit 5, Bell Green Retail Park, Bell Green SE26"

For both methods, it is possible to make as long or as short a comment as you choose and it is acceptable to make a simple statement such as "I Support the application" or "I object to the application".

In the online form the Council requests that you specifically record your "Stance" in terms of whether you Object, Support or are Neutral about the application and it may be worthwhile making a similar remark if you use the email method.

Good luck to those who elect to make a comment.

I did so at the time I created this thread. Sad to see the reaction of the Forest Hill brigade. Remember, most of the local Councillors live in Forest Hill and they have a history of being very jealously protective of that suburb of Sydenham. That is why the South Circular rebuild never happened (after blighting many properties in Sydenham for years before they finally decided on the route through Forst Hill). I see they have revamped part of the scheme in Catford but without creating any of the necessary real road improvements. A scheme simply to let cyclists terrorise pedestrians in Catford!

If they had decided to tunnel beneath the Hill, at Forest Hill, the whole area would have been improved. They wanted to be cheap... so it was never built.

Hi John

I am interested in your comments about the route of the South Zigzagular. If Lewisham Council is protective of Forest Hill why would the decision be taken to run the A205 through the town centre - a permanent disfiguration of the area? Was tunneling seriously considered? Is there any documentation? Minutes of meetings? Mention in manifesto's?

[Just John]

If you feel the need to provide a response to Lewisham Council, you can record your views in one of two ways.

You can access the Lewisham Planning Portal directly and use an online form to make your comment.

This link can be used and if you use this online method you will have to login or register as a new user:

https://planning.lewisham.gov.uk/online ... APR_122288

Double check that you are responding to application DC/24/134364 Insertion of a mezzanine floor in Unit 5B in connection with the sub-division of Unit 5, Bell Green Retail Park, Bell Green SE26

Alternatively you can email planning@lewisham.gov.uk using the application reference "DC/24/134364 Insertion of a mezzanine floor in Unit 5B in connection with the sub-division of Unit 5, Bell Green Retail Park, Bell Green SE26"

For both methods, it is possible to make as long or as short a comment as you choose and it is acceptable to make a simple statement such as "I Support the application" or "I object to the application".

In the online form the Council requests that you specifically record your "Stance" in terms of whether you Object, Support or are Neutral about the application and it may be worthwhile making a similar remark if you use the email method.

Good luck to those who elect to make a comment.

I did so at the time I created this thread. Sad to see the reaction of the Forest Hill brigade. Remember, most of the local Councillors live in Forest Hill and they have a history of being very jealously protective of that suburb of Sydenham. That is why the South Circular rebuild never happened (after blighting many properties in Sydenham for years before they finally decided on the route through Forst Hill). I see they have revamped part of the scheme in Catford but without creating any of the necessary real road improvements. A scheme simply to let cyclists terrorise pedestrians in Catford!

If they had decided to tunnel beneath the Hill, at Forest Hill, the whole area would have been improved. They wanted to be cheap... so it was never built.

Hi John

I am interested in your comments about the route of the South Zigzagular. If Lewisham Council is protective of Forest Hill why would the decision be taken to run the A205 through the town centre - a permanent disfiguration of the area? Was tunneling seriously considered? Is there any documentation? Minutes of meetings? Mention in manifesto's?

because the decision was taken out of local control... The road was not built because the decision was not what the Forest Hill clique wanted.

[JRW]

Dear Just John,

The South Circular route was never going to be a local authority decision. It was decided at ministry level, or London level, but Lewisham Council would never have been allowed much of a say.

The fundamental problem with the South Circular is that it is much too close to central London. The North Circular was laid out as North London was built up, so had plenty of space. The South Circular should have run through Bromley, with its wider roads.

Plans for the south side of Ringway 2 were much disputed. For more info see
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Ringways

[Forester]

Dear Just John,

The South Circular route was never going to be a local authority decision. It was decided at ministry level, or London level, but Lewisham Council would never have been allowed much of a say.

The fundamental problem with the South Circular is that it is much too close to central London. The North Circular was laid out as North London was built up, so had plenty of space. The South Circular should have run through Bromley, with its wider roads.

Plans for the south side of Ringway 2 were much disputed. For more info see
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Ringways

It's unacceptable the lack of interest in this issue from current or prospective political representatives. I have just had the official Labour election leaflet delivered. Absolutely nothing substantive in it about local issues! Wake up Greens and Lib Dems - lots of winnable votes available!

[Just John]

Dear Just John,

The South Circular route was never going to be a local authority decision. It was decided at ministry level, or London level, but Lewisham Council would never have been allowed much of a say.

The fundamental problem with the South Circular is that it is much too close to central London. The North Circular was laid out as North London was built up, so had plenty of space. The South Circular should have run through Bromley, with its wider roads.

Plans for the south side of Ringway 2 were much disputed. For more info see
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Ringways

This thread is about a proposal to develop a Marks and Spencer Food Hall at Bell Green. An incidental comment has been used to divert from that purpose. The debate on the South Circular should be in its own thread. This one is about M&S at Bell Green.