M&S Store Opening at Bell Green in September

Local talk
21

I accept that we have different opinions on the merits of the planning application, interpretation of planning rules and how the Forest Hill Society should consult/respond on planning applications.

But I do not accept that there is any unabridged version of this planning objection in existence. I’ve spent considerable time comparing the three versions (two on the web and the other in my sent emails). I’m unable to see any of the differences that you are implying.

I’ve also read the post on Sydenham Forum and the two quotes from the document are available in all versions. There is no disputing that there was a typo in the last paragraph and a failure to remove a line that was not relevant since the demolition of the gas holders. It is fair to call out both of those mistakes in the objection.

I’ve always been very proud that the Forest Hill Society has always published our letters of objection/support to planning applications, it is not something that is done by most civic societies in this country (no criticism intended to any of our neighbouring civic societies). We choose do this for a few reasons:

  1. Our members and non-members have a right to know what we say
  2. They may wish to send similar letters in alignment of our objections/support
  3. They may wish to have their say in opposition to our views, and we welcome that
  4. We cannot consult with all out members of every planning application, but we do have a small group of individuals who volunteer to review planning applications and help form suitable responses based on planning regulations

And it is because we are open about publishing our responses, that I want to clear up any misconception that we may have removed some of this response from the website.

Please do send me a copy. You know my email address or you can post it here. I would be happy to run it through AI to see if it differs in any way to the version on the website. I also have the original email I sent, so if there is some reasonable explanation (e.g. a mistake from Lewisham, where they can combined our objection with somebody else’s) then we can clear up this misunderstanding.

4 Likes
22

I note this is a second reference to AI to check for some difference. I fail to understand why it is felt AI has a role to play here.

I have posted the relevant copied sections from the website earlier in this thread to show where I see the visual differences. They appear as several lines of white space. The spaces are present and clear. I also fully accept your explanation that this may be a transition error that occured when the document was created for the website.

I have also said in a more recent post that I am “happy to accept your assertion re your intended content on planning arguments, conclusions, and requested outcome” We have moved on from there and our focus is now on content and consultation.

You reveal you used criteria and text extracted from the response to the Aldi store application in Bell Green which, for clarity and amongst other things, included the construction of a new build store on a new footprint.

The FHSoc response to the M&S proposal which, very differently, is an internal remodelling and division of Unit 5B, all internal works with no new construction work outside the existing footprint, contains this section:

“Further Development Management Policy 30 sets out that “the Council require all development proposals to attain a high quality of
design”. Which is not the case in this application because of the way it:
a) fails to create activity and frontage at ground level,
b) fails to create coherent built form that relates to the local topology,
c) does not make a positive relationship with existing townscape,
d) creates large areas of parking and servicing, and
e) fails to recognise the positive character of the existing gas holders or reflect its
positive qualities in the scheme.”

It is evidently clear that whilst paragrahs a), b), c) and d) were possibly relevant to the Aldi new-build elements their inclusion here cannot be related to what is an essentially internal remodelling job as proposed by M&S in their application.

You acknowledge that at least paragraph e) should have been deleted by you.

However, any suggestion that there is a material connection between any of these paragraphs and M&S’s proposed internal remodelling does not stand up to scrutiny. You may agree that ALL of the paragraphs should have been deleted. I will leave you to resolve in your own way the wisdom of copying and pasting this section from the Aldi response to the M&S response.

On the matter of consultation, it is also accepted that not all members can be consulted. But this question arises, who was consulted? Who peer reviewed the response before it was submitted?

On matters related to the substantial works around Livesey Hall and on the former Gas Holder site you and I had conversation and exchanged views in a fairly positive fashion.

This level of consultation between you and I was not the case for what was the much smaller M&S proposal and when we spoke about the contents of that proposed response, you were clearly unhappy when asked about who had been consulted. I reported to you at that time that there was widespread support for the proposed new M&S store in the locale.

On this matter of contents and the absence of consultation you delivered a rather trite comment, witnessed, that FHSoc does not consult.

On a follow up matter, M&S have made several public statements about plans to expand their national estate and on one published list included Forest Hill as a potential candidate location for a new store. Has FHSoc Planning Committee made any direct approaches to M&S to promote Forest Hill and make recomendations on particular locations which you may identify?

Many of our members would see making such contact with M&S as being a rather positive and achievable objective with a delivery of real benefit should M&S concur with any recommendation FHSoc make and select Forest Hill for a new store.

23

From Nov 2025.

M&S announce 500 potential sites - Forest Hill listed alphabetically in section titled The City, NE and SE London at position 24.

Edit: Sydenham is also listed in this group.

As stated earlier there is no significant report on progress on this larger scheme although the Bell Green unit is present in reports on imminent openings.

24

Alright, lads, we’ve all had a drink.

2 Likes