The Decision Notice was issued on 12 November, refusing permission to extend to two storeys, on the grounds of overshadowing, being out of character and lack of a parking plan. The DN can be viewed here. 7 November 2020: Better late than never! Safety signs have now been attached to the newly whitewashed hoarding and shrubbery/trees around the building cut down, making the spectre of a second storey above what exists even more over-dominatng, due to its extremely close proximity to the Greenwood Centre - not even a metre between. It would reduce light into the hall from the front windows, which are the main source of natural light, apart from the glass fire exit doors at the side rear end. How can the second storey be built without access to the side adjacent to the Centre and how will the exterior be maintained? There is barely room for a man to squeeze between the boundary wall and the building, so neither a ladder nor scaffolding could be erected there. Since there is less than one metre between the two buildings, another query is how the public conveniences came to be built that close to the wall in the first place! Should not a second storey be at least one metre from the boundary? The building line in the High Street is not clear but houses from number 8 upwards have a much longer frontage and lie further back from the road, so it is questionable why the public conveniences were built extending twelve feet in front of the Centre. Surely now is the time to have this corrected, not exacerbated by allowing a second storey to be added? LBB's Planning Department have still not made a decision on the planning application but it is hoped that, should they not reject it, a Planning Committee will be allowed to consider it before a decision is finalised. Our local ward Councillor, Mike Botting, has made that request.
28 July 2020 Only four years later and now another planning application has just been submitted to increase the building by adding another floor and squeezing in four offices, a kitchen and a toilet. The plans and elevations are below. However, the site area indicated includes some land which is not owned by Malekos Estates Commercial Ltd (sic Georgios Malekos, sole director), including the front verge, which provides the only access to the site. Surely this would be an excessive overdevelopment which will overlook gardens in Manitoba Gardens. It is an unattractive design, totally out of character with the area and on that side of the High Street, it is completely residential. Having measured the building from the outside, allowing for the central staircase and wall thickness, the three larger offices will be approximately 12ft x 18.5ft, which converts to 51 cubic metres, assuming ceiling height is 8ft - this allows accommodation for 4 persons (11 cubic metres per person). The smaller office will be approximately 12ft x 9ft, converting to 25 cubic metres, allowing accommodation for 2 persons. The plans only show one desk for the smaller office and two for the others but it does not stop a user squeezing in more legally, which would mean there COULD be 14 persons regularly on the site. Bike racks appear on the plans but there is NO on site parking, regardless of the fact that there is no vehicular access to the site and the Council would not approve a new dropped verge at that location, due to the pedestrian crossing. The Association had a battle to prove that their and the resident at number 6's driveway and dropped kerb had been in position long before Orpington Urban District Council put in the pedestrian crossing in the 1960s. Due to this, the apparently incongruous entrance and exit from number 6 and the Centre is allowable. Local residents will, no doubt, object to this development on parking grounds, as well as overlooking Manitoba Gardens properties, overdevelopment impacting on the Greenwood Centre and being totally out of character for the area, as there are no other modern flat roof buildings in the High Street. There are also access/right of way considerations, which would need to be overcome before any development could begin and the fact that there is a fire exit route from the back of the Centre, coming out into the High Street, from the side of the former public conveniences building, which has been in use as such for nearly 40 years. This is essential, particularly for the pre-school, and must be preserved. The full documentation can be viewed on the Planning Portal here: Planning Applications (enter 20/02569) 2 May 2016 Nearly two years later and the site is contributing to the creeping tattiness in parts of the High Street, as it deteriorates and weeds begin to take hold. An internet search produced a number of references to Mr Georgios (aka George) Malekos, the sole director of Malekos Estates Commercial Ltd, one of which is: "Mr George Malekos is British. The first directorship we have on file for him was in 1995 at Shadow Security and Surveillance Ltd. His newest directorship was with Shadow Group Ltd where he held the position of "Company director". The company was established 14 Oct 2015. So far, George has held 19 directorships, 2 of which are currently active, and 17 are no longer active." Several companies founded by Mr Malekos have only survived for a short time and were set up with assets of just £100. Most of the companies have been liquidated or dissolved. Having obtained planning permission, perhaps Mr Malekos is merely waiting for property prices to increase, so he can sell it on at a profit. However, there is only a year left before the planning permission expires..... Margot Rohan, Orpington Community The planning application was granted permission on 6 June. Hopefully something will happen soon...... , 6 April 2014 A planning application was submitted on 27 February and validated on 26 March. It is for change of use to an office (Class B1), with a rough plan (see drawings on the left). The target determination date is 21 May 2014. (To view the planning application, click here and enter 14/00712/FULL2 in the search window) The applicant is Mr Georgios Malekos, the only director of Malekos Estates Commercial Ltd (Reg No. 08870203), which was incorporated in January 2014. A company called Malekos Estates Ltd (Reg No.04424186) has been in existence since 2002 and has several directors with the surname Malekos, listing Georgios Malekos (born 28 January 1972) as a director since January 2014. For some reason, the company has changed its registered address regularly over the years and, since 2009, has alternated between the same address in Southend-on-Sea and an address in West Wickham, changing every year to two years. Interestingly, Mr Georgios Malekos was previously the managing and only director of Shadow Facilities Management Ltd (Reg No.07324932), purportedly 'one of the United Kingdom's leading security and facility management companies'. However, it was only incorporated in August 2012 and went into voluntary liquidation a year later, following an SIA breach. There are obviously local links (West Wickham) but what this applicant's plans are for this site remain to be seen.
22 October 2013 The Trustees of Greenwood Community Centre submitted a conditional free transfer bid - offering to take over the site if the council received no other acceptable bids and demolished the building. Unfortunately this was not accepted, as other bids offering to purchase the site have been received. Bromley Council stated that they would keep the Society details on file and we will be contacted if the contract falls through. The tenders for considering will go to the Executive and Resources Policy Development and Scrutiny Committee and the Portfolio holder will make a decision in the second half of November. Indications are that the existing building will be redeveloped. An update will be published once the council have reached a decision. 24 August 2013 Despite great opposition voiced a year ago, when it was announced that the public conveniences were closing, there has not been much active interest shown by local residents now that the Council has put up the site for sale. However, there is still time to let the Village Society know if residents feel strongly or are concerned that the site will be sold for an, as yet undetermined, commercial use. The next committee meeting is on Monday 9 September. This matter will be on the agenda but, if residents have not made representations for the Society to take action to prevent the sale for a non-community use, it is unlikely that the Society will tender a bid. The current arrangements for public toilets in the local area may not be ideal and residents may feel the need to write to their local councillors to ask the Council to improve the times of availability and the locations, but maintenance of the existing public toilets for the relatively low volume of usage would not be economically viable, even if a charge was levied. Anyone wishing to voice their concerns or suggest a possible community use and how to raise funds to maintain the site should contact the Village Society via the contact us page. 19 August 2013 Some residents are already showing interest in ensuring this site remains for community use - even if no longer as public conveniences. No one can guarantee that a bid by the community will be accepted by the council. However, it is worth considering the costs, pitfalls and advantages of the site being taken over as a community asset and, if feasible, putting in a bid. If the community does nothing, it would be a pity if the site is either left to deteriorate or someone purchases it and puts it to a use residents feel is unsatisfactory. If you are prepared to be part of an action group and help investigate the possibilities, please add your comments below and contact us. (The documentation regarding the sale of the site can be accessed in the article below.) 8 August 2013 Bromley Council is offering this site for sale by sealed bid, closing 2 October 2013. Any takers? Full details can be downloaded here. At least it has been made clear that the site is 'NOT SUITABLE FOR RESIDENTIAL USE', so developers will not be able to squeeze in an inappropriate house with no amenity space nor parking! IF it was considered viable to take on this extra area, would local residents be prepared to join an action group to make it happen? Funds would have to be raised for the purchase and a workable solution devised for its use, including covering the cost of maintenance. Could the building be economically maintained as public conveniences or refurbished and used as an extra facility, rooms for hire perhaps? Or would it be feasible to knock it down and create a garden area or allotments? The next Village Society Committee meeting is on 9 September, so that will be the last chance for Green Street Green residents to have a say in whether the Society takes any action regarding this site. A dynamic sub-committee of at least 5 or 6 needs to be formed to take on management of this project, if residents feel strongly enough about closure of these public conveniences or want to ensure they have control of what happens to the site in the future. If you are prepared to volunteer to be part of an action group, please add your comments below and contact us. 8 July 2013 Health professionals are concerned that the lack of public toilets may lead to an increase in: - Strokes, due to high blood pressure being exacerbated when desperate to go to the toilet - People with bladder problems afraid to leave their homes - Urinating in public places when people are 'caught short' Public toilets were introduced into the UK in 1851, following concerns about infection and disease from sewage in the streets. However, even the Romans thought public toilets were a necessary facility for civilised society! Green Street Green's public toilets, next to the Greenwood Community Centre, were always well used, both by locals and passing traffic, due to their convenient location and long opening hours. They were closed on 8 June 2012 and have been 'replaced' with community facilities (only available during normal opening hours) provided by: - Belmondo, in Brittenden Parade (one toilet plus nappy changing facilities but no disabled access) - Crescent café (one cubicle and one has to pass the service counter) - Royal Oak (not open until 12pm and unsuitable for children) What do you think about this situation? Please post your views below. Today's Daily Mail article. Guardian article 18 February 2011
11 Comments
Lesley Cook
11/10/2013 12:51:43 am
Access to public loos should not be seen as a luxury but as a service to residents & visitors alike. I aways feel I'm in a mean minded place when I find them shut or absent. I hope these premises are given local backing and remain open. Thank you loo
Reply
13/10/2013 10:23:49 pm
No one can possibly achieve any real and lasting success or 'get rich' in business by being a conformist.
Reply
Patricia connor
21/8/2014 12:33:35 pm
We r cyclists and we have always used the public toilets in green street green before we start to make our way home..now there. R 2 lovely cafe.s in green street green so it's a perfect location to st off so let's try and keep the local toilets
Reply
Margot Rohan (Village Society Secretary)
24/8/2014 06:22:46 am
Patricia - thank you for your comment. Unfortunately it is too late to 'save' the public toilets, as they have already been sold to a company which is proposing to set up a business in the building - after refurbishment! Local residents do not feel that the current facilities offered are satisfactory - at Belmondo's Café (only one cubicle, no wheelchair access & not open at weekends - bottom of Glentrammon Road), The Royal Oak (only open from 12pm - by A21 roundabout at other end of High Street) and the Crescent Café (also not open at weekends - near the Buff Orpington pub). However, there is not much that can be done, other than to bombard Bromley Council with complaints - but it is a question of funding and apparently it cost £13,000 p.a. to keep these toilets open, whereas the council is paying a mere £1,000 p.a. per facility with the new outsourced variety.
Reply
George Dorgan
1/8/2020 04:26:04 pm
In Looking at Mr Malekos' financial history as presented, he does not seem to be entirely reliable fiscally. It would be terrible to grant permission, have work begin and then stop halfway through. Or to find that the specs quotes in the application were not adhered to in the construction of the building. The building that is already there that he put up is not attractive to look at and don't hold out much hope that his newly-proposed expansion would look much better.
Reply
Margot Rohan (GSGA Trustee)
1/8/2020 09:28:49 pm
The existing building (what is left behind the boarding) is the remains of the original public conveniences. The only building work which was commenced and then stopped after a few months, a couple of years ago, was in clearing out the building and disconnecting the electricity, leaving dangerous cavities in front of the building which the Association had to follow up with the Council to get Mr Malekos to put up the boarding to make it safe. I'm afraid he does not have a good track record as far as our experiences with him!
Reply
LB
8/8/2020 01:30:39 pm
What is the village's proposals for the building. It seems you are objecting to every planning application but not putting forward an alternative while the site becomes more and more dilapidated
Reply
Margot Rohan
8/8/2020 03:15:31 pm
Dear 'LB' - If you read the history above, you will see that the Association did not object to the single story office application back in 2014. Mr Malekos has allowed the site to delapidate over the years since. He had planning permission and, after a negligible attempt to start work on the site, left it unprotected and open with live electrical cables and a dangerous hole in the front. The Association had to approach the Council to get Mr Malekos to board the site safely, since there is a pre-school in the Greenwood Centre and the fire escape route led straight into the site, as well as it being open to the High Street. An ideal solution would be for the Association to acquire the site which could be much more attractively and usefully employed as a garden and recreation area for the pre-school and the village. The Association tried to acquire the site when the Council auctioned it in 2013, but did not at that time have funds to pay £10,000, which we believe was the price Mr Malekos paid. All this is in the article.
Reply
LB
8/8/2020 04:17:37 pm
Or perhaps you could make it clearer for your readers! Which you now have.
Margot Rohan
23/5/2021 11:59:24 am
CORRECTION: £70,000 was paid to acquire the site - information obtained from a Freedom of Information Request.
Margot Rohan
11/8/2020 06:53:18 pm
It is nice to know we have some readers and are not just writing into blank space! All comments are appreciated whether positive or negative - everyone is entitled to an opinion.
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorsPosts are made by members of the Association to stimulate interest and raise local concerns Archives
January 2030
Categories
All
See Orpington Community for discussion of issues across a wider area
Click on map to see the Green Street Green area:
Green Street Green Association (CIO) is a registered charity no.1172661
|