User rbmartin on Sydenham Town Forum posted this yesterday:
https://sydenham.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?p=196656&sid=c7bd9e1dd11cf620d14fb69efce90aa2#p196656
Confirms additional posts on Sydenham Facebook groups that the store will commence operation in September 2026.
M&S have setup a job application page here:
Thanks @One_Real_JGD and also @rbmartin (assuming it is the same one 
)
This is good news. It has been in development for some time so it will be good to see how it performs, and to have another shopping option locally.
I did see a news report about these openings as there are other stores they are opening across London at the moment. What was a little disappointing is that the message was that they are focusing on larger stores, and therefore either not targeting high streets, or actively closing their high street stores (like Banstead), further exacerbating the issues we have keeping these places busy.
I do worry slightly about the likely impact on traffic at Bell Green since this is only really accessible by car (and by bus I guess - I have tried going there by bike, but it is not a comfortable experience), which means even more traffic to the area, and the car park is already rather full with users of the existing stores.
Yes, already worthwhile avoiding peak shopping times.
Just to confirm it was me on the Sydenham Town Forum.
And further impact on the high street as noted by FHS back in 2024..
It is noteworthy that this version of FHSoc’s Planning Objection is an abridged version of what was actually submitted to Lewisham planners.
The un-abridged version was much more strident in its written objections and contained expressed views that were frankly not based on recognisable planning terms. That original copy remains on the planning portal and was retained by those of us who did not concur with the narrow views expressed by FHSoc and contained in its objection.
Two separate points are relevant outside the response.
For those of use who live adjacent to Bell Green, the bus services provided in the area are more than satisfactory - they are frequent and punctual and do not require the use of a car.
Secondly - M&S expressed a desire to see significant expansions in the numbers of its outlets and whilst there has been limited news on how that plan is progressing, Forest Hill was listed as a potential centre in which a new outlet could be placed.
The only thing I disagree with is the bus connections at Bell Green. Fine if you want to go to Catford or Sydenham. If you want to visit the retail park from Forest Hill, you either have to wait up to 20 mins (30 on Sundays) for the 356 or get on a bus to Sydenham than change at Cobbs for the 202 or walk down Sydenham Road to get the other buses that serve Bell Green.
I doubt anyone who lives near Bell Green gets on the 181 all the way to Lewisham as it then goes on a long winded trip via Hither Green instead changing in Catford for one of the buses that goes down Rushey Green.
Your point on the sparcity of 356 service from Forest Hill is well made - we have from time to time discussed re-introduction of that portion of the 194 route that once ran from Forest Hill to Bell Green. I still feel that would be a small but key improvement measure.
However we live on the 181 and 202 routes and find the extent and frequency of those services to be perfectly adequate. We often use the 181 all the way to Lewisham but do occasionally switch at Catford.
The remainder of services to and from Bell Green provide a good network of links (albeit some meander a little more than the 181) and we use many of them frequently.
Nothing is ever perect and improvement can always be sought - but sometimes we feel criticism of the bus service network around Bell Green is misplaced and oft overstated without ever recognising some really positive factors.
The point about bus access is made for Forest Hill / SE23 residents (users of this site).
The 181 and 202 just about skirt the outside of this area, and there are several other routes that go the other direction to Sydenham, Crystal Palace and Bromley, but there is only the small and infrequent 356 that connects Bell Green to the area we are most concerned about here. That is why I say it is not an ideal shopping solution for local users, who are therefore either excluded from these services, or have to drive.
Perry Valers are in the sweet spot of being in walking distance of Bell Green but closer to the 75 bus route which is a better service for Lewisham and Croydon.
For those who use public transport west of the railway line, it’ll still be easier to travel to the M&S Food Hall on Lordship Lane on the 176 or 185. (Some people may also prefer to go to M&S in Lewisham as an alternative, but it’s closing later this year).
If anyone recalls when Sainsbury’s on London Road was closed for renovation works a couple of years back, the signs at the store recommended going to the Dulwich Superstore on Dog Kennel Hill rather than Bell Green as the public transport to East Dulwich is better from Forest Hill.
agree, Public transport to Bell green from Forest hill town centre is poor to say the least..
When I have to go there for a blood test I always tend to walk.
For those living in and around Dartmouth and London Roads, given the choice I’d opt for the East Dulwich branch on account of all the other shopping alternatives found on Lordship Lane. The combined 185 and 176 bus routes do also present a more reliable means of getting there and back.
As the person who sent the response from the Forest Hill Society I can assure you this is exactly what we sent to the council.
You are welcome to send me the ‘unabridged version’ that you believe we sent to the council and I would be happy to forward you the only email I sent on behalf on the Forest Hill Society on this application.
The response was extracted from the response to the Aldi store application in Bell Green (with slightly fewer concerns as it will generate fewer trips than the larger Aldi store). Other than that, it was important to me to apply the same arguments to M&S Food as to Aldi. While I’m sure there are many in the local area who want to see an Aldi and many (others) who want to see M&S Food - this isn’t a class war to get appropriate shops for particular areas. The arguments are about the slow demise of the high streets that was a concern from the time of the planning permission for Savacentre (Sainsburys) in the late 1990s and the restrictions placed on food retail on the remainder of the site at the time.
It was clear that, having granted Aldi permission, Lewisham was not going to reject M&S, but there was a principle of equality of treatment of these two applications by the Forest Hill Society. It also explains why the line about the ‘positive character of the existing gas holders’ was still in there after their demolition (my mistake for not removing that line when copying the Aldi objection).
I am pleased to see that the M&S will open soon in Bell Green, but it is worth noting that during this time One Stop has opened in Forest Hill town centre. This too (not instead) could have been M&S Food - which works well in a town centre location extremely close to a transport hub. But it is still good news for people in SE23 to have an M&S store opening in the local area.
I concur that the submission may have been extracted from the response to the Aldi store or indeed any prior application made for Bell Green. The Aldi proposal was considered and rejected by council planners.
The unabridged version was published on the old version of the FHSoc website which no longer exists of course and the abridged version subsequently appeared on the renewed FHSoc website.
However there was discussion on Sydenham Town Forum regarding FHSoc’s then published objection: and it is noteworthy, reference is made to sections that are no longer present. Could it be the case that a different version was in circulation and was published as the formal submission whilst, as stated, a very different submission was made Lewisham. If this is the case this existence of two versions was never made clear.
https://sydenham.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?p=196257#p196257
The old version of the website is still available if you know where to look:
The text is identical to the new website and to the email I sent, right down to the typo in the word ‘retailers’.
Regrettably it is not identical.
Even more regrettably it does still contains these commentaries quoted elsewhere:
“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.”
The version replicated on the new FHSoc website looks like this - different from the original:
I’m still confused as to what you are pointing to as different between the two versions. If there are any differences i can only assume they are minor as I’m having difficulty spotting them.
But it is possible that something has changed when the text was moved between blogger and wordpress. I will be happy to correct anything that is different and ensure it accurately reflects the email i sent to the planning department.
AI is useful. It compared both and concluded.
There are no fundamental differences. The planning arguments, conclusions, and requested outcome appear to be effectively identical.
Far from identical and I have checked all the versions.
But happy to accept your assertion re your intended content on planning arguments, conclusions, and requested outcome.
The accuracy of the original content and its context remain as they were at the time - without balance across our communities, outdated, questionable and fundamentally flawed in planning terms. Michael’s dismissiveness when challenged about its contents and the absence of consultation delivered a commentary, witnessed, from him that FHSoc does not consult.
The objection, prepared in the insular fashion it was and without consultation with residents who lived in proximity to the proposal, achieved very little in terms of assisting Lewisham’s planners as decision makers in reaching an understanding of what the communities across Perry Vale, Lower Sydenham, Bellingham and Forest Hill.
Thankfully the planners decided in favour of the proposal and our local community will see delivery of the desired outcome.
