Bickley landowners say they should be allowed to build in borough's green belt

News Shopper: Leslie Osborn at Blackbrook Lane Leslie Osborn at Blackbrook Lane

A GROUP of landowners in the borough is trying to see 34 ‘executive style’ homes built on green belt land.

Lead plot owner Leslie Osborn, 65, of Welling, said he and 17 others purchased the 8.5 acre Blackbrook Lane site, Bickley, in 1982 with dreams of building their perfect homes.

After plans were never realised they have now filed an application for houses – 12 said to be affordable – and hope to sell to a developer in a move they say will "enhance and improve the area".

But architectural consultant Mr Osborn said authorities appear to oppose plans and have been avoiding the submission, noting disagreements regarding recent changes to green belt policy.

He said planning framework changed last year, paving the way for developments at sites built on in the past – Ministry of Defence buildings stood at Blackbrook Lane in the last century.

He told News Shopper: "It’s a brown field site. Government policy brought in in 2013 allows work on previously developed land.

"Bromley Council always has to be controversial. We lodged the application last June and it’s taking so long. People don’t want us there – nobody likes change.

"We’re all now too old to build our own so we want to sell. We want to see it used for something worthwhile."

Bob Neill MP disputed the claims and stated the plot owners are wrong about the rules, adding: "Protections for the green belt remain firmly in place. Any suggestion to the contrary is based on an entirely flawed interpretation of the National Planning Policy Framework, which is a document I part-authored as a minister."

Bromley Council said: "We were unable to validate the application until January 2014 due to a lack of necessary information from the applicant. We will assess this application carefully and consider the planning merits before making our decision in the usual way.

"It is worth noting that the site lies within green belt land where there is a policy against inappropriate development."

Mr Osborn added a squatter had been living in a shack at Blackbrook Lane and had been fighting against proposed building work. He said he and other plot owners had been threatened by the individual.

Comments (31)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

4:49pm Tue 4 Mar 14

goldenbroomboy says...

Well done Bob Neill, and well done Bromley Council.

If Mr Rich is so knowledgeable about legal procedure then he should know about an Originating Summons for Possession pursuant to Order 113 of the Rules of the Supreme Court (I won't charge for that advice, he can give a tenner to a charity of his choice).
Well done Bob Neill, and well done Bromley Council. If Mr Rich is so knowledgeable about legal procedure then he should know about an Originating Summons for Possession pursuant to Order 113 of the Rules of the Supreme Court (I won't charge for that advice, he can give a tenner to a charity of his choice). goldenbroomboy
  • Score: -4

5:45pm Tue 4 Mar 14

Jakemathews says...

Ok then Goldenbroomboy what do you suggest they do with this land? It looks a mess and it would really impove this area if it was developed. I have just found out about this squatter and this is exactly the sort of thing we don't want in the area. The trouble with people like Bob Neil is they forget all the houses in this road were built on sites exactly like this one, so why not this one?
Ok then Goldenbroomboy what do you suggest they do with this land? It looks a mess and it would really impove this area if it was developed. I have just found out about this squatter and this is exactly the sort of thing we don't want in the area. The trouble with people like Bob Neil is they forget all the houses in this road were built on sites exactly like this one, so why not this one? Jakemathews
  • Score: 3

6:16pm Tue 4 Mar 14

goldenbroomboy says...

Jakemathews wrote:
Ok then Goldenbroomboy what do you suggest they do with this land? It looks a mess and it would really impove this area if it was developed. I have just found out about this squatter and this is exactly the sort of thing we don't want in the area. The trouble with people like Bob Neil is they forget all the houses in this road were built on sites exactly like this one, so why not this one?
I have already suggested an appropriate course of action to remove the squatter. As for "looking a mess" I actually quite like sites which have been reclaimed by nature, as opposed those which have been deliberately landscaped which to my eye can look contrived.

Why not enquire about turning the land into a nature reserve, or perhaps a public park? I draw attention to what is now Plaistow Green on the border between Plaistow,and Sundridge. That park has not always been there, in the sixties a school stood on the site. I doubt if many today would prefer to see houses there instead of the park.
[quote][p][bold]Jakemathews[/bold] wrote: Ok then Goldenbroomboy what do you suggest they do with this land? It looks a mess and it would really impove this area if it was developed. I have just found out about this squatter and this is exactly the sort of thing we don't want in the area. The trouble with people like Bob Neil is they forget all the houses in this road were built on sites exactly like this one, so why not this one?[/p][/quote]I have already suggested an appropriate course of action to remove the squatter. As for "looking a mess" I actually quite like sites which have been reclaimed by nature, as opposed those which have been deliberately landscaped which to my eye can look contrived. Why not enquire about turning the land into a nature reserve, or perhaps a public park? I draw attention to what is now Plaistow Green on the border between Plaistow,and Sundridge. That park has not always been there, in the sixties a school stood on the site. I doubt if many today would prefer to see houses there instead of the park. goldenbroomboy
  • Score: -3

8:33pm Tue 4 Mar 14

Eagles_Man says...

goldenbroomboy wrote:
Jakemathews wrote:
Ok then Goldenbroomboy what do you suggest they do with this land? It looks a mess and it would really impove this area if it was developed. I have just found out about this squatter and this is exactly the sort of thing we don't want in the area. The trouble with people like Bob Neil is they forget all the houses in this road were built on sites exactly like this one, so why not this one?
I have already suggested an appropriate course of action to remove the squatter. As for "looking a mess" I actually quite like sites which have been reclaimed by nature, as opposed those which have been deliberately landscaped which to my eye can look contrived.

Why not enquire about turning the land into a nature reserve, or perhaps a public park? I draw attention to what is now Plaistow Green on the border between Plaistow,and Sundridge. That park has not always been there, in the sixties a school stood on the site. I doubt if many today would prefer to see houses there instead of the park.
Fair point. Beckenham Green also was built-up, before Hitler did some re-modelling.

Jake: if any untidy looking bit of ground is fair game, then when is High Elms or St Paul's Cray Wood getting bulldozed?
[quote][p][bold]goldenbroomboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jakemathews[/bold] wrote: Ok then Goldenbroomboy what do you suggest they do with this land? It looks a mess and it would really impove this area if it was developed. I have just found out about this squatter and this is exactly the sort of thing we don't want in the area. The trouble with people like Bob Neil is they forget all the houses in this road were built on sites exactly like this one, so why not this one?[/p][/quote]I have already suggested an appropriate course of action to remove the squatter. As for "looking a mess" I actually quite like sites which have been reclaimed by nature, as opposed those which have been deliberately landscaped which to my eye can look contrived. Why not enquire about turning the land into a nature reserve, or perhaps a public park? I draw attention to what is now Plaistow Green on the border between Plaistow,and Sundridge. That park has not always been there, in the sixties a school stood on the site. I doubt if many today would prefer to see houses there instead of the park.[/p][/quote]Fair point. Beckenham Green also was built-up, before Hitler did some re-modelling. Jake: if any untidy looking bit of ground is fair game, then when is High Elms or St Paul's Cray Wood getting bulldozed? Eagles_Man
  • Score: -2

8:53pm Tue 4 Mar 14

victoriaplumb says...

Jubilee Country Park, a 62-acre public park is within sight of this land.

I have lived in Bickley all of my life and think it is a great idea to build houses which are in keeping with the area.

Have you seen their website blackbrooklane.com? You could hardly let the pubic onto this land as it is full of drains and footings making it very dangerous.
Jubilee Country Park, a 62-acre public park is within sight of this land. I have lived in Bickley all of my life and think it is a great idea to build houses which are in keeping with the area. Have you seen their website blackbrooklane.com? You could hardly let the pubic onto this land as it is full of drains and footings making it very dangerous. victoriaplumb
  • Score: 5

10:29pm Tue 4 Mar 14

isaachunt7100 says...

goldenbroomboy wrote:
Jakemathews wrote:
Ok then Goldenbroomboy what do you suggest they do with this land? It looks a mess and it would really impove this area if it was developed. I have just found out about this squatter and this is exactly the sort of thing we don't want in the area. The trouble with people like Bob Neil is they forget all the houses in this road were built on sites exactly like this one, so why not this one?
I have already suggested an appropriate course of action to remove the squatter. As for "looking a mess" I actually quite like sites which have been reclaimed by nature, as opposed those which have been deliberately landscaped which to my eye can look contrived.

Why not enquire about turning the land into a nature reserve, or perhaps a public park? I draw attention to what is now Plaistow Green on the border between Plaistow,and Sundridge. That park has not always been there, in the sixties a school stood on the site. I doubt if many today would prefer to see houses there instead of the park.
Colin. Do you think the council would compulsory purchase the land from the owners to turn it into the park you talk about? I think progress is inevitable, What will happen to the land if the application is turned down? The article says that the owners are elderly so will they just sell it on the open market? Maybe a couple travellers would buy it to keep their horses on?
[quote][p][bold]goldenbroomboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jakemathews[/bold] wrote: Ok then Goldenbroomboy what do you suggest they do with this land? It looks a mess and it would really impove this area if it was developed. I have just found out about this squatter and this is exactly the sort of thing we don't want in the area. The trouble with people like Bob Neil is they forget all the houses in this road were built on sites exactly like this one, so why not this one?[/p][/quote]I have already suggested an appropriate course of action to remove the squatter. As for "looking a mess" I actually quite like sites which have been reclaimed by nature, as opposed those which have been deliberately landscaped which to my eye can look contrived. Why not enquire about turning the land into a nature reserve, or perhaps a public park? I draw attention to what is now Plaistow Green on the border between Plaistow,and Sundridge. That park has not always been there, in the sixties a school stood on the site. I doubt if many today would prefer to see houses there instead of the park.[/p][/quote]Colin. Do you think the council would compulsory purchase the land from the owners to turn it into the park you talk about? I think progress is inevitable, What will happen to the land if the application is turned down? The article says that the owners are elderly so will they just sell it on the open market? Maybe a couple travellers would buy it to keep their horses on? isaachunt7100
  • Score: 5

10:39pm Tue 4 Mar 14

flea_in_ear says...

'After plans were never realised they have now filed an application for houses – 12 said to be affordable – and hope to sell to a developer in a move they say will "enhance and improve the area". ' The only improvement these people are looking at is their bank balance. As for improving the area, land allowed to grow wild is a haven for wildlife. But they could certainly improve it by removing that mass of wife fencing. Having seen the number of council houses illegally rented out, properties standing empty - I have reservations about just how many new properties we actually need. Of course it is in the developers' interests to say we need more. Otherwise they go out of business.
'After plans were never realised they have now filed an application for houses – 12 said to be affordable – and hope to sell to a developer in a move they say will "enhance and improve the area". ' The only improvement these people are looking at is their bank balance. As for improving the area, land allowed to grow wild is a haven for wildlife. But they could certainly improve it by removing that mass of wife fencing. Having seen the number of council houses illegally rented out, properties standing empty - I have reservations about just how many new properties we actually need. Of course it is in the developers' interests to say we need more. Otherwise they go out of business. flea_in_ear
  • Score: 0

11:38pm Tue 4 Mar 14

isaachunt7100 says...

flea_in_ear wrote:
'After plans were never realised they have now filed an application for houses – 12 said to be affordable – and hope to sell to a developer in a move they say will "enhance and improve the area". ' The only improvement these people are looking at is their bank balance. As for improving the area, land allowed to grow wild is a haven for wildlife. But they could certainly improve it by removing that mass of wife fencing. Having seen the number of council houses illegally rented out, properties standing empty - I have reservations about just how many new properties we actually need. Of course it is in the developers' interests to say we need more. Otherwise they go out of business.
The housing market drives the economy. If these houses were built just think what that would mean. New jobs would be created in the construction industry. The land owners would all pay tax on any profit they made. The developer would pay tax on profits made. 34 houses worth in excess of £500k would all pay stamp duty at 4%. 34 old houses would then be sold and more stamp duty would be collected and so on. Yes the land owners would make some money but think how much would be generated for the government.
Where are all these property's that are standing empty? I'm not sure the house prices would be rising like they are in the area if we had too many houses!
[quote][p][bold]flea_in_ear[/bold] wrote: 'After plans were never realised they have now filed an application for houses – 12 said to be affordable – and hope to sell to a developer in a move they say will "enhance and improve the area". ' The only improvement these people are looking at is their bank balance. As for improving the area, land allowed to grow wild is a haven for wildlife. But they could certainly improve it by removing that mass of wife fencing. Having seen the number of council houses illegally rented out, properties standing empty - I have reservations about just how many new properties we actually need. Of course it is in the developers' interests to say we need more. Otherwise they go out of business.[/p][/quote]The housing market drives the economy. If these houses were built just think what that would mean. New jobs would be created in the construction industry. The land owners would all pay tax on any profit they made. The developer would pay tax on profits made. 34 houses worth in excess of £500k would all pay stamp duty at 4%. 34 old houses would then be sold and more stamp duty would be collected and so on. Yes the land owners would make some money but think how much would be generated for the government. Where are all these property's that are standing empty? I'm not sure the house prices would be rising like they are in the area if we had too many houses! isaachunt7100
  • Score: 1

7:24am Wed 5 Mar 14

goldenbroomboy says...

isaachunt7100 wrote:
goldenbroomboy wrote:
Jakemathews wrote: Ok then Goldenbroomboy what do you suggest they do with this land? It looks a mess and it would really impove this area if it was developed. I have just found out about this squatter and this is exactly the sort of thing we don't want in the area. The trouble with people like Bob Neil is they forget all the houses in this road were built on sites exactly like this one, so why not this one?
I have already suggested an appropriate course of action to remove the squatter. As for "looking a mess" I actually quite like sites which have been reclaimed by nature, as opposed those which have been deliberately landscaped which to my eye can look contrived. Why not enquire about turning the land into a nature reserve, or perhaps a public park? I draw attention to what is now Plaistow Green on the border between Plaistow,and Sundridge. That park has not always been there, in the sixties a school stood on the site. I doubt if many today would prefer to see houses there instead of the park.
Colin. Do you think the council would compulsory purchase the land from the owners to turn it into the park you talk about? I think progress is inevitable, What will happen to the land if the application is turned down? The article says that the owners are elderly so will they just sell it on the open market? Maybe a couple travellers would buy it to keep their horses on?
I have to inform you that I am not Colin Smith (who AFAIK posts under his real name), and since I do not live in Bickley I feel that it would not be appropriate for me to make formal representations to Bromley Council on this matter, although IMHO it would be a good use of public money to purchase the same as you suggest.

FTR "Golden Broom" was the shrub from which the name "Broomleigh" developed.
[quote][p][bold]isaachunt7100[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]goldenbroomboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jakemathews[/bold] wrote: Ok then Goldenbroomboy what do you suggest they do with this land? It looks a mess and it would really impove this area if it was developed. I have just found out about this squatter and this is exactly the sort of thing we don't want in the area. The trouble with people like Bob Neil is they forget all the houses in this road were built on sites exactly like this one, so why not this one?[/p][/quote]I have already suggested an appropriate course of action to remove the squatter. As for "looking a mess" I actually quite like sites which have been reclaimed by nature, as opposed those which have been deliberately landscaped which to my eye can look contrived. Why not enquire about turning the land into a nature reserve, or perhaps a public park? I draw attention to what is now Plaistow Green on the border between Plaistow,and Sundridge. That park has not always been there, in the sixties a school stood on the site. I doubt if many today would prefer to see houses there instead of the park.[/p][/quote]Colin. Do you think the council would compulsory purchase the land from the owners to turn it into the park you talk about? I think progress is inevitable, What will happen to the land if the application is turned down? The article says that the owners are elderly so will they just sell it on the open market? Maybe a couple travellers would buy it to keep their horses on?[/p][/quote]I have to inform you that I am not Colin Smith (who AFAIK posts under his real name), and since I do not live in Bickley I feel that it would not be appropriate for me to make formal representations to Bromley Council on this matter, although IMHO it would be a good use of public money to purchase the same as you suggest. FTR "Golden Broom" was the shrub from which the name "Broomleigh" developed. goldenbroomboy
  • Score: -4

9:38pm Wed 5 Mar 14

Jakemathews says...

goldenbroomboy wrote:
Jakemathews wrote:
Ok then Goldenbroomboy what do you suggest they do with this land? It looks a mess and it would really impove this area if it was developed. I have just found out about this squatter and this is exactly the sort of thing we don't want in the area. The trouble with people like Bob Neil is they forget all the houses in this road were built on sites exactly like this one, so why not this one?
I have already suggested an appropriate course of action to remove the squatter. As for "looking a mess" I actually quite like sites which have been reclaimed by nature, as opposed those which have been deliberately landscaped which to my eye can look contrived.

Why not enquire about turning the land into a nature reserve, or perhaps a public park? I draw attention to what is now Plaistow Green on the border between Plaistow,and Sundridge. That park has not always been there, in the sixties a school stood on the site. I doubt if many today would prefer to see houses there instead of the park.
As you don't live in the area of this site why are you so bothered? Looks like you might lose some of your public land when Boris gets his way. What would you rather lose then, this private site or some public space?
http://www.standard.
co.uk/news/london/se
ll-public-land-to-so
lve-housing-crisis-b
oris-johnson-is-told
-9170298.html
[quote][p][bold]goldenbroomboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jakemathews[/bold] wrote: Ok then Goldenbroomboy what do you suggest they do with this land? It looks a mess and it would really impove this area if it was developed. I have just found out about this squatter and this is exactly the sort of thing we don't want in the area. The trouble with people like Bob Neil is they forget all the houses in this road were built on sites exactly like this one, so why not this one?[/p][/quote]I have already suggested an appropriate course of action to remove the squatter. As for "looking a mess" I actually quite like sites which have been reclaimed by nature, as opposed those which have been deliberately landscaped which to my eye can look contrived. Why not enquire about turning the land into a nature reserve, or perhaps a public park? I draw attention to what is now Plaistow Green on the border between Plaistow,and Sundridge. That park has not always been there, in the sixties a school stood on the site. I doubt if many today would prefer to see houses there instead of the park.[/p][/quote]As you don't live in the area of this site why are you so bothered? Looks like you might lose some of your public land when Boris gets his way. What would you rather lose then, this private site or some public space? http://www.standard. co.uk/news/london/se ll-public-land-to-so lve-housing-crisis-b oris-johnson-is-told -9170298.html Jakemathews
  • Score: 3

7:28am Thu 6 Mar 14

goldenbroomboy says...

Jakemathews wrote:
goldenbroomboy wrote:
Jakemathews wrote: Ok then Goldenbroomboy what do you suggest they do with this land? It looks a mess and it would really impove this area if it was developed. I have just found out about this squatter and this is exactly the sort of thing we don't want in the area. The trouble with people like Bob Neil is they forget all the houses in this road were built on sites exactly like this one, so why not this one?
I have already suggested an appropriate course of action to remove the squatter. As for "looking a mess" I actually quite like sites which have been reclaimed by nature, as opposed those which have been deliberately landscaped which to my eye can look contrived. Why not enquire about turning the land into a nature reserve, or perhaps a public park? I draw attention to what is now Plaistow Green on the border between Plaistow,and Sundridge. That park has not always been there, in the sixties a school stood on the site. I doubt if many today would prefer to see houses there instead of the park.
As you don't live in the area of this site why are you so bothered? Looks like you might lose some of your public land when Boris gets his way. What would you rather lose then, this private site or some public space? http://www.standard. co.uk/news/london/se ll-public-land-to-so lve-housing-crisis-b oris-johnson-is-told -9170298.html
I live within & pay council tax to the Bromley borough, of which Bickley is a part, and accordingly I have an interest in, & a right to be heard, regarding the borough environment.. Bromley is a very pleasant borough in which to live, and I am not alone in wanting to preserve the character of the same, which IMHO is far preferable to the overcrowded brick & mortar monstrosity which lies on the other side of the A20, and the troubled quasi city which lies at the other end of the 119 bus route.

As for Boris Johnson, whilst he has greater admirers than myself I do appreciate that he has largely left our green spaces alone, as opposed to his predecessor who would have tunred Berrys Green into Berrys Grey & then boasted about it. I have read your link, & the same is not Boris Johnson's policy but the recommendations of Roger Bright, chairman of "London First". If Bright wants to pull down a few disused bus stations then I doubt if anybody would cry a river, as to whether the powers that be would want one person (ie the so called "Mayor") to have even more power then that is another matter.

Finally don't worry, if this matter does go to a public hearing I will turn up & you can hear my pearls of wisdom in the flesh.
[quote][p][bold]Jakemathews[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]goldenbroomboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jakemathews[/bold] wrote: Ok then Goldenbroomboy what do you suggest they do with this land? It looks a mess and it would really impove this area if it was developed. I have just found out about this squatter and this is exactly the sort of thing we don't want in the area. The trouble with people like Bob Neil is they forget all the houses in this road were built on sites exactly like this one, so why not this one?[/p][/quote]I have already suggested an appropriate course of action to remove the squatter. As for "looking a mess" I actually quite like sites which have been reclaimed by nature, as opposed those which have been deliberately landscaped which to my eye can look contrived. Why not enquire about turning the land into a nature reserve, or perhaps a public park? I draw attention to what is now Plaistow Green on the border between Plaistow,and Sundridge. That park has not always been there, in the sixties a school stood on the site. I doubt if many today would prefer to see houses there instead of the park.[/p][/quote]As you don't live in the area of this site why are you so bothered? Looks like you might lose some of your public land when Boris gets his way. What would you rather lose then, this private site or some public space? http://www.standard. co.uk/news/london/se ll-public-land-to-so lve-housing-crisis-b oris-johnson-is-told -9170298.html[/p][/quote]I live within & pay council tax to the Bromley borough, of which Bickley is a part, and accordingly I have an interest in, & a right to be heard, regarding the borough environment.. Bromley is a very pleasant borough in which to live, and I am not alone in wanting to preserve the character of the same, which IMHO is far preferable to the overcrowded brick & mortar monstrosity which lies on the other side of the A20, and the troubled quasi city which lies at the other end of the 119 bus route. As for Boris Johnson, whilst he has greater admirers than myself I do appreciate that he has largely left our green spaces alone, as opposed to his predecessor who would have tunred Berrys Green into Berrys Grey & then boasted about it. I have read your link, & the same is not Boris Johnson's policy but the recommendations of Roger Bright, chairman of "London First". If Bright wants to pull down a few disused bus stations then I doubt if anybody would cry a river, as to whether the powers that be would want one person (ie the so called "Mayor") to have even more power then that is another matter. Finally don't worry, if this matter does go to a public hearing I will turn up & you can hear my pearls of wisdom in the flesh. goldenbroomboy
  • Score: -7

8:30pm Wed 12 Mar 14

danm5577 says...

I think they should build here too, look at the estate at the back which is fairly new, wasn't that built on green belt?
Probably the owners opposite the peice of land kicking up a stink!
Don't think it should be a housing estate, maybe a gated comunity?
I think they should build here too, look at the estate at the back which is fairly new, wasn't that built on green belt? Probably the owners opposite the peice of land kicking up a stink! Don't think it should be a housing estate, maybe a gated comunity? danm5577
  • Score: 5

8:23pm Tue 18 Mar 14

Katecooks says...

I do not live on this road, but drive down Blackbrook Lane every morning. During rushhour traffic on this road is very heavy and slow as this is major route for many going to work; this road also leads to a number of primary and secondary schools and is very polluted for children who walk to school or to the bus stops at the top and bottom of the road. A couple of years ago an accident brought this road to a standstill for over 2 hours and it was difficult for ambulances to get access. More houses mean more traffic - this road cannot take any more!
As for the site being 'unattractive' that is due to the current developers cutting down all the trees on this land (obviously to assist with their application for houses). I am fairly certain that most of the comments on this are from the owners of the land (there are 17 I believe) who do not actually live in Bickley/Bromley. The only people who would wish for more housing to be built on green belt land in the borough are those who would profit from it. As for there being an undesirable 'squatter' on the land, one harmless old man living in a rough shack (not visible from the road or paths) is only causing inconvenience to the landowners - no-one else living locally sees this as a problem. Comments about the possibilities of gypsies camping on the land are simply scaremongering and lies from the landowners. The land should be replanted with trees and retained as Green Belt.
I do not live on this road, but drive down Blackbrook Lane every morning. During rushhour traffic on this road is very heavy and slow as this is major route for many going to work; this road also leads to a number of primary and secondary schools and is very polluted for children who walk to school or to the bus stops at the top and bottom of the road. A couple of years ago an accident brought this road to a standstill for over 2 hours and it was difficult for ambulances to get access. More houses mean more traffic - this road cannot take any more! As for the site being 'unattractive' that is due to the current developers cutting down all the trees on this land (obviously to assist with their application for houses). I am fairly certain that most of the comments on this are from the owners of the land (there are 17 I believe) who do not actually live in Bickley/Bromley. The only people who would wish for more housing to be built on green belt land in the borough are those who would profit from it. As for there being an undesirable 'squatter' on the land, one harmless old man living in a rough shack (not visible from the road or paths) is only causing inconvenience to the landowners - no-one else living locally sees this as a problem. Comments about the possibilities of gypsies camping on the land are simply scaremongering and lies from the landowners. The land should be replanted with trees and retained as Green Belt. Katecooks
  • Score: -4

8:36pm Tue 18 Mar 14

danm5577 says...

The only issue with congestion is the school. I have witnessed this every morning at 8:20. Every parent is intent on driving into and out of the school to drop their kids off, causing tail backs from the school towards Southbourogh lane, whilst no issues going the other way and no issues once past this school.
The only issue with congestion is the school. I have witnessed this every morning at 8:20. Every parent is intent on driving into and out of the school to drop their kids off, causing tail backs from the school towards Southbourogh lane, whilst no issues going the other way and no issues once past this school. danm5577
  • Score: 3

8:59pm Tue 18 Mar 14

Katecooks says...

No, the only issue with congestion is not 'the school' (I presume you mean Bromley High), although even if it was, this is not going to change, as many of the pupils come from quite a distance. If you look at the children walking along the road, there are a number going to the bus stop at the top of Blackbrook Lane, travelling to Beaver's Wood, Bullerswood, Coopers and Chis & Sid (the bus on Bickley Park Lane goes towards Sidcup). There are also those travelling to two primary schools on Southborough Lane (Southborough school and St. James) and Bishop Justis in Magpie Hall Lane. I am actually one of those parent who drives her child to the bus stop- simply so that she doesn't have to walk through the pollution on this horrendously busy road. THIS Monday, the tailback of traffic at 7.45 am was all the way from Bickley Park Road to Homemead Road - this was not caused by parents dropping off at Bromley High, which doesn't get busy until after 8am. I agree that after 8.15am it is better not to be driving in this area unless you have nothing better to do than sit in traffic listening to your radio. Bromley council recently made changes to the roundabout at Bickley Park road in an attempt to alleviate congestion (so clearly there is one) but this hasn't been successful.
I can only assume - danm5577 - that you are one of the landowners?
No, the only issue with congestion is not 'the school' (I presume you mean Bromley High), although even if it was, this is not going to change, as many of the pupils come from quite a distance. If you look at the children walking along the road, there are a number going to the bus stop at the top of Blackbrook Lane, travelling to Beaver's Wood, Bullerswood, Coopers and Chis & Sid (the bus on Bickley Park Lane goes towards Sidcup). There are also those travelling to two primary schools on Southborough Lane (Southborough school and St. James) and Bishop Justis in Magpie Hall Lane. I am actually one of those parent who drives her child to the bus stop- simply so that she doesn't have to walk through the pollution on this horrendously busy road. THIS Monday, the tailback of traffic at 7.45 am was all the way from Bickley Park Road to Homemead Road - this was not caused by parents dropping off at Bromley High, which doesn't get busy until after 8am. I agree that after 8.15am it is better not to be driving in this area unless you have nothing better to do than sit in traffic listening to your radio. Bromley council recently made changes to the roundabout at Bickley Park road in an attempt to alleviate congestion (so clearly there is one) but this hasn't been successful. I can only assume - danm5577 - that you are one of the landowners? Katecooks
  • Score: -3

10:02pm Tue 18 Mar 14

danm5577 says...

Oh no not a land owner, wish I had that sort of money!
My nan lives opposite the school nearby.
Just think a few houses (not a full housing estate) would look lovely on this bit of land.
And the "improvements" (if they should be called that) to bickley park road mini roundabout have made things worse!
Oh no not a land owner, wish I had that sort of money! My nan lives opposite the school nearby. Just think a few houses (not a full housing estate) would look lovely on this bit of land. And the "improvements" (if they should be called that) to bickley park road mini roundabout have made things worse! danm5577
  • Score: 3

8:49pm Mon 24 Mar 14

Jakemathews says...

I think you all forget that your own homes were built on farms & woodland and your children will be thankful to have extra houses in this area to move into. Blackbrook Lane was in the middle of being built when the war halted the project. The houses were supposed to stretch from one end to another, the bit in the middle was used by the MOD and had buildings on it hence it is a brownfield site. You couldn't turn it into a park, it is too dangerous. You have only got to look at the video evidence on the blackbrooklane.com website.
Jubilee Park is 62 acres, 2 minutes away and cannot be joined to this site as it is land locked. How much more park land is needed? Most isn't used anyway other than as a dog toilet.
If it isn't built on I'm sure the owners might look at inviting travellers onto it. What would we rather, nice homes or travellers/boot fairs ECT?

If it is traffic problems you are talking about then get someone to enforce the 7.5 tonne weight limit on these roads and that will fix the issues.
I think you all forget that your own homes were built on farms & woodland and your children will be thankful to have extra houses in this area to move into. Blackbrook Lane was in the middle of being built when the war halted the project. The houses were supposed to stretch from one end to another, the bit in the middle was used by the MOD and had buildings on it hence it is a brownfield site. You couldn't turn it into a park, it is too dangerous. You have only got to look at the video evidence on the blackbrooklane.com website. Jubilee Park is 62 acres, 2 minutes away and cannot be joined to this site as it is land locked. How much more park land is needed? Most isn't used anyway other than as a dog toilet. If it isn't built on I'm sure the owners might look at inviting travellers onto it. What would we rather, nice homes or travellers/boot fairs ECT? If it is traffic problems you are talking about then get someone to enforce the 7.5 tonne weight limit on these roads and that will fix the issues. Jakemathews
  • Score: 3

9:22pm Mon 24 Mar 14

Katecooks says...

HaHa! - Jakemathews, now you are definitely one of the landownders! This is not a brownfield site, it is greenbelt land and you knew this when purchasing. No-one wants to turn this land into a 'park' - it should be restored to woodland and left for wildlife. Pollution in Bromley is as high as inner London due to prevailing winds - we need trees not houses for our children. Don't threaten inviting travellers onto the land - that's just scaremongering nonsense and would not be to your benefit (you'd be left with the clean-up bill). As you said the land is 'dangerous' and uneven so why would travellers want to move onto it? They want a nice piece of flat land with facilities such as water available - certainly wouldn't want this one.
The heavy traffic in this area is cars only - lorries etc are rare on Blackbrook Lane and no buses; you clearly don't know the area very well.
HaHa! - Jakemathews, now you are definitely one of the landownders! This is not a brownfield site, it is greenbelt land and you knew this when purchasing. No-one wants to turn this land into a 'park' - it should be restored to woodland and left for wildlife. Pollution in Bromley is as high as inner London due to prevailing winds - we need trees not houses for our children. Don't threaten inviting travellers onto the land - that's just scaremongering nonsense and would not be to your benefit (you'd be left with the clean-up bill). As you said the land is 'dangerous' and uneven so why would travellers want to move onto it? They want a nice piece of flat land with facilities such as water available - certainly wouldn't want this one. The heavy traffic in this area is cars only - lorries etc are rare on Blackbrook Lane and no buses; you clearly don't know the area very well. Katecooks
  • Score: -2

10:26pm Mon 24 Mar 14

Jakemathews says...

Katecooks, I think you need to look up the definition brownfield in the Oxford English Dictionary
BROWNFIELD:-
Denoting or relating to urban sites for potential building development that have had previous development on them.

There is no doubt that this site is brownfield as there is evidence both in the ground and documented that this land has had a previous development on it. If you choose to ignore these facts then so be it.
Katecooks, I think you need to look up the definition brownfield in the Oxford English Dictionary BROWNFIELD:- Denoting or relating to urban sites for potential building development that have had previous development on them. There is no doubt that this site is brownfield as there is evidence both in the ground and documented that this land has had a previous development on it. If you choose to ignore these facts then so be it. Jakemathews
  • Score: 5

8:38am Tue 25 Mar 14

Katecooks says...

JakeMathews - I think if you were told this was a Brownfield site when purchasing you should consider getting compensation from the seller - you were mis-sold. During the war there were a number of buildings in Jubilee Park - shelters/watchtowers etc were built by the MOD on greenbelt/beaches etc all over Britain; most were removed after the war. This did not make these 'urban sites' . Brownfield land is land for 'industrial or commercial use'. The land on Blackbrook Lane has not been used for either.
JakeMathews - I think if you were told this was a Brownfield site when purchasing you should consider getting compensation from the seller - you were mis-sold. During the war there were a number of buildings in Jubilee Park - shelters/watchtowers etc were built by the MOD on greenbelt/beaches etc all over Britain; most were removed after the war. This did not make these 'urban sites' . Brownfield land is land for 'industrial or commercial use'. The land on Blackbrook Lane has not been used for either. Katecooks
  • Score: -5

9:54am Tue 25 Mar 14

A D Hall says...

Katecooks I suggest you too need to look up BROWNFIELD There are footings and drainage remaining in this land which makes this site BROWNFEILD. Please get your facts right before commenting again. Also its people like you that cause these traffic jams every morning by dropping your children to school-or to catch a bus-adding to the pollution the area with 'your' car fumes! Bit pointless when you just informed us there were no buses!!
Katecooks I suggest you too need to look up BROWNFIELD There are footings and drainage remaining in this land which makes this site BROWNFEILD. Please get your facts right before commenting again. Also its people like you that cause these traffic jams every morning by dropping your children to school-or to catch a bus-adding to the pollution the area with 'your' car fumes! Bit pointless when you just informed us there were no buses!! A D Hall
  • Score: 6

10:00am Tue 25 Mar 14

A D Hall says...

Katecooks I suggest you look up BROWNFIELD. There are footings and drainage remaining in this land which makes this site BROWNFEILD. Please get your facts right before commenting again. Also i'd like to mention that its people like you that cause these traffic jams every morning by dropping your children to school-or to catch a bus-adding to the pollution the area with 'your' car fumes! A rather pointless operation when you just informed us there were no buses!! Whats wrong with walking to the bus stop?.. If you really are concerned with pollution!
Katecooks I suggest you look up BROWNFIELD. There are footings and drainage remaining in this land which makes this site BROWNFEILD. Please get your facts right before commenting again. Also i'd like to mention that its people like you that cause these traffic jams every morning by dropping your children to school-or to catch a bus-adding to the pollution the area with 'your' car fumes! A rather pointless operation when you just informed us there were no buses!! Whats wrong with walking to the bus stop?.. If you really are concerned with pollution! A D Hall
  • Score: 6

1:09pm Tue 25 Mar 14

Katecooks says...

Brownfield - Industrial or commercial (as previously stated)
Buses - only the R7 operates on Blackbrook Lane and turns down Oldfield Road. Children catch buses at the TOP (Bickley Park Road) and BOTTOM (southborough Lane). If you lived in this area you would know this.
Brownfield - Industrial or commercial (as previously stated) Buses - only the R7 operates on Blackbrook Lane and turns down Oldfield Road. Children catch buses at the TOP (Bickley Park Road) and BOTTOM (southborough Lane). If you lived in this area you would know this. Katecooks
  • Score: -2

1:29pm Tue 25 Mar 14

Katecooks says...

Four years after purchase, landowners applied for a change in use of this land
and I quote "from GREENBELT to garden nursery"
Four years after purchase, landowners applied for a change in use of this land and I quote "from GREENBELT to garden nursery" Katecooks
  • Score: -3

3:10pm Wed 26 Mar 14

Jakemathews says...

Katecooks wrote:
Brownfield - Industrial or commercial (as previously stated)
Buses - only the R7 operates on Blackbrook Lane and turns down Oldfield Road. Children catch buses at the TOP (Bickley Park Road) and BOTTOM (southborough Lane). If you lived in this area you would know this.
There are some 40-50 out of service double decker bues which use Blackbrook Lane as a cut through from Bexleyheath to Bromley Common bus garage on a daily basis. I know this and I have proof of it. There is a huge amount of lorries over 7.5 tonne using Blackbrook Lane. Again I can provide proof if you wish to leave me your contact details.

The land has never apply for change of use, more incorrect information from you once again.
[quote][p][bold]Katecooks[/bold] wrote: Brownfield - Industrial or commercial (as previously stated) Buses - only the R7 operates on Blackbrook Lane and turns down Oldfield Road. Children catch buses at the TOP (Bickley Park Road) and BOTTOM (southborough Lane). If you lived in this area you would know this.[/p][/quote]There are some 40-50 out of service double decker bues which use Blackbrook Lane as a cut through from Bexleyheath to Bromley Common bus garage on a daily basis. I know this and I have proof of it. There is a huge amount of lorries over 7.5 tonne using Blackbrook Lane. Again I can provide proof if you wish to leave me your contact details. The land has never apply for change of use, more incorrect information from you once again. Jakemathews
  • Score: 3

10:56pm Wed 26 Mar 14

Lizrobertson269 says...

Hear hear to enforcing the 7.5 tonne weight limit on this and surrounding residential roads. Im fed up with lorries and buses illegally using Blackbrook Lane. Katecook the extra traffic this week in Blackbrook Lane is because there are road works and temporary 4way traffic lights in Southborough Road. Try leaving your car at home and walk. What a load of hypocrites the residents of Bickley are ! They are all too ready to sell their large homes to developers who demolish them and then build two or more homes on the same site (more cars, loss of trees/gardens etc etc). Or back garden homes like the one being built in the garden of a home in Hawthorne Road directly overlooking houses in Albyfield! I understand that this site had to be cleared because of squatters building shacks to live in on the land. Personally I don't want people like that as my neighbours. Planting trees there will just encourage more of the same.






.
Hear hear to enforcing the 7.5 tonne weight limit on this and surrounding residential roads. Im fed up with lorries and buses illegally using Blackbrook Lane. Katecook the extra traffic this week in Blackbrook Lane is because there are road works and temporary 4way traffic lights in Southborough Road. Try leaving your car at home and walk. What a load of hypocrites the residents of Bickley are ! They are all too ready to sell their large homes to developers who demolish them and then build two or more homes on the same site (more cars, loss of trees/gardens etc etc). Or back garden homes like the one being built in the garden of a home in Hawthorne Road directly overlooking houses in Albyfield! I understand that this site had to be cleared because of squatters building shacks to live in on the land. Personally I don't want people like that as my neighbours. Planting trees there will just encourage more of the same. . Lizrobertson269
  • Score: 3

8:52am Thu 27 Mar 14

Katecooks says...

Lizrobertson/JakeMat
hews - problems with the weight of buses and lorries are an entirely different matter and absolutely nothing to do with building on this land!
I have driven down Blackbrook Lane every morning (and evening) for 7 years - yes, traffic is considerably worse at the moment due to the traffic lights, but has always been extremely heavy (my daughter cannot walk to the bus stop as she is disabled and would find it difficult to walk the necessary 2 miles, so I have little choice in this and cannot afford to move closer to her school).
I'm interested in your belief that the land was cleared because of squatters -I thought the story was about one homeless man who had built a shack on the land, although I have not met anyone who has actually seen this shack and regularly walk in Jubilee park behind this land (I have met a rather lovely and harmless old 'tramp' so perhaps you are referring to him - I don't know where he sleeps at night). It seems likely to me that this story is a pure invention by the landowners to convince snobbish locals to support them (as is the ridiculous idea that if they can't build, they will 'invite travellers to use the land - next it will 'immigrants'). Why would you go to the expense of clearing an entire 8.5 acres of land for one 'shack'?! And why wouldn't 'squatters' (if there are more than one) simply camp on the thickly wooded parts of Jubilee Park instead? Absolutely nonsense - the land was cleared just prior to making the latest planning application.
I'm sorry if your view is blighted by others who sell their gardens for building land (so is mine) and wish planners would reject more of these applications, but building on this greenbelt will make no difference to this.
Lizrobertson/JakeMat hews - problems with the weight of buses and lorries are an entirely different matter and absolutely nothing to do with building on this land! I have driven down Blackbrook Lane every morning (and evening) for 7 years - yes, traffic is considerably worse at the moment due to the traffic lights, but has always been extremely heavy (my daughter cannot walk to the bus stop as she is disabled and would find it difficult to walk the necessary 2 miles, so I have little choice in this and cannot afford to move closer to her school). I'm interested in your belief that the land was cleared because of squatters -I thought the story was about one homeless man who had built a shack on the land, although I have not met anyone who has actually seen this shack and regularly walk in Jubilee park behind this land (I have met a rather lovely and harmless old 'tramp' so perhaps you are referring to him - I don't know where he sleeps at night). It seems likely to me that this story is a pure invention by the landowners to convince snobbish locals to support them (as is the ridiculous idea that if they can't build, they will 'invite travellers to use the land - next it will 'immigrants'). Why would you go to the expense of clearing an entire 8.5 acres of land for one 'shack'?! And why wouldn't 'squatters' (if there are more than one) simply camp on the thickly wooded parts of Jubilee Park instead? Absolutely nonsense - the land was cleared just prior to making the latest planning application. I'm sorry if your view is blighted by others who sell their gardens for building land (so is mine) and wish planners would reject more of these applications, but building on this greenbelt will make no difference to this. Katecooks
  • Score: -5

6:57pm Thu 27 Mar 14

Lizrobertson269 says...

I would remind Katecooks that it was you who brought up the subject of traffic. I have lived in Blackborok Lane for over 40 years and believe me the traffic was much worse in the 1970's when Aquila was MOD offices and laboratories and part of the road surface of Blackbrook Lane was unadopted! At least people in houses leave home at staggered times - when everyone on the Aquila site turned out at 4.30pm it was chaos. This land was not cleared immediately prior to the present planning application. I spoke with the contractors over two years ago who said they were asked to clear the land as huts were appearing illegally on it and it would be easier to monitor if it was cleared.. Whether this is the work of one man or more I do not know. You cannot see the site from Jubilee Park it is bounded by both Bromley High School and the hotel both built on Green Belt Land.- but nobody objected to this! This is a derelict land locked site which is regularly fly tipped by local residents, which to my still active mind would be much improved by a development.
I would remind Katecooks that it was you who brought up the subject of traffic. I have lived in Blackborok Lane for over 40 years and believe me the traffic was much worse in the 1970's when Aquila was MOD offices and laboratories and part of the road surface of Blackbrook Lane was unadopted! At least people in houses leave home at staggered times - when everyone on the Aquila site turned out at 4.30pm it was chaos. This land was not cleared immediately prior to the present planning application. I spoke with the contractors over two years ago who said they were asked to clear the land as huts were appearing illegally on it and it would be easier to monitor if it was cleared.. Whether this is the work of one man or more I do not know. You cannot see the site from Jubilee Park it is bounded by both Bromley High School and the hotel both built on Green Belt Land.- but nobody objected to this! This is a derelict land locked site which is regularly fly tipped by local residents, which to my still active mind would be much improved by a development. Lizrobertson269
  • Score: 2

7:14pm Thu 27 Mar 14

Katecooks says...

Liz robertson - no doubt another of the landowners or at least connected to them - 'spoken to the land owners'; 'regularly fly tipped' - another attempt to scare residents into thinking this land would be better developed - I've never seen evidence of fly tipping on this site and Blackbrook Lane is far to busy to do this unnoticed, so I wouldn't think it would be an obvious choice for fly tippers. I can't comment on traffic 40 years ago; I am only concerned with what it is like now and how much worse it will be if this site is developed. Most people in houses go to work or take children to school at a similar time so this will make a difference between the hours of 7.30 to 9am. Yes, I mentioned traffic; but you seem more concerned with the weight of large vehicles, which as I said is a separate issue.
Liz robertson - no doubt another of the landowners or at least connected to them - 'spoken to the land owners'; 'regularly fly tipped' - another attempt to scare residents into thinking this land would be better developed - I've never seen evidence of fly tipping on this site and Blackbrook Lane is far to busy to do this unnoticed, so I wouldn't think it would be an obvious choice for fly tippers. I can't comment on traffic 40 years ago; I am only concerned with what it is like now and how much worse it will be if this site is developed. Most people in houses go to work or take children to school at a similar time so this will make a difference between the hours of 7.30 to 9am. Yes, I mentioned traffic; but you seem more concerned with the weight of large vehicles, which as I said is a separate issue. Katecooks
  • Score: -2

8:45pm Thu 27 Mar 14

danm5577 says...

I use this road daily and the only traffic issues are the school and bickly road roundabout.
Considering there is road works in Southborough road I wouldn't say the traffic has increased much.
Like I said the main issue is the school, everyone is determind to drive into the school, which then blocks the road with cars waiting to turn right into it.
This has lead to tail backs as far as Southborough lane!
But I did also notice a lot of traffic trying to get out of bickley manor road which isn't a good junction at all!
Seeing as you can park bothsides of blackbrook lane almost the whole length, why can't parents park then walk up to the school.
Is there any plans submitted that can be viewed?
Would be interested to see them.
I use this road daily and the only traffic issues are the school and bickly road roundabout. Considering there is road works in Southborough road I wouldn't say the traffic has increased much. Like I said the main issue is the school, everyone is determind to drive into the school, which then blocks the road with cars waiting to turn right into it. This has lead to tail backs as far as Southborough lane! But I did also notice a lot of traffic trying to get out of bickley manor road which isn't a good junction at all! Seeing as you can park bothsides of blackbrook lane almost the whole length, why can't parents park then walk up to the school. Is there any plans submitted that can be viewed? Would be interested to see them. danm5577
  • Score: 0

11:52am Fri 28 Mar 14

Lizrobertson269 says...

I have not spoken to the landowners - I spoke to the contractors. If you were to get out of your car and walk down Thornet Wood Road you would see evidence of fly tipping - garden waste which is tipped over the fence by the local residents. Ive seen them doing it - evenings and weekends. The mound in the middle of the land is the remains of a previous fly tip of rubble when the gate was broken down, and which I reported but nothing has been done about apart from replacing the gate.
I have not spoken to the landowners - I spoke to the contractors. If you were to get out of your car and walk down Thornet Wood Road you would see evidence of fly tipping - garden waste which is tipped over the fence by the local residents. Ive seen them doing it - evenings and weekends. The mound in the middle of the land is the remains of a previous fly tip of rubble when the gate was broken down, and which I reported but nothing has been done about apart from replacing the gate. Lizrobertson269
  • Score: 2

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree