Tyrwhitt Road update

Friend of Brockley Central, Kirsty, frightened herself and then us, when she read a letter from the Council, informing her that planning permission was being sought at 2a Tyrwhitt Road for a single story building - comprising six 2 bed flats, two 2 bed maisonettes and parking for 7 cars.

Fearing that this meant the demolition of The Talbot, she emailed us and dashed round to the pub to get the story for herself. In doing so, she has been able to provide two interesting updates:

1. The application is for "The Pretoria Parade", not The Talbot.

2. Work to The Talbot is still going ahead, but "the credit crunch" set their plans back a bit, meaning work will now begin in October, with the new-look pub opening in the new year.

Thanks to Kirsty for her frenetic work.

58 comments:

Lady said...

What is the Pretoria Parade?

Headhunter said...

Aha an update. I just emailed them actually!

Yeah what's this Pretoria Parade thing?

Tressillian James said...

Presuming its the row of victorian shops including derelict grocers opposite the talbot. Whcih would answer all our questions as to why the buildings had been allowed to run down and no new business interest. The owners wanted to build a whopping block of flats there with on site parking...

What is given with one hand (THe Talbot refurb) is taken away by the other....

Perhaps...maybe...?

Kirsty said...

I dunno I think it's the JH Stone and Co building. Because the application says 'demolition of the existing building' at 2a tyrwhitt road.

Vikki said...

A ha!

Literally just emailed Brockley Nick about this!

It is the W P Stone Building - have just spoken to the Planning Officer saying that I think the address is a bit mis-leading.

I haven't had chance to look at the plans properly but I do have a few concerns...

Firstly that the new building will still be very deep but instead of being single storey it will be three storeys - just seems too big for that site really. I have no idea how they will squeeze seven flats in.

Secondly the new building is neither exciting or innovative or really in keeping with the area - okay I know it's not great at this end of Tyrwhitt but we deserve a bit better than some wimpey-esque block of flats.

Obviously living next door means my initial reaction isn't very evenly balanced! But I'd be more than happy to live next door to some nice flats rather than an industrial building. However it would be nice for this end of Tyrwhitt Road to have a bit of TLC rather than just any old development. Also I quite like W P Stone - it looks slightly interwar and interesting!

Anyway I will probably lodge my concerns in writing and find a way to show others my letter if they also want to register concerns.

If any of the Ladywell and Brockley councillors are reading this the Planning Officer said he would take representations from both sides as, although in Ladywell, people on the Brockley side of the road have also been consulted.

Vikki said...

Oh and just to say that although the letter residents got says 'single storey' building to be built, from talking to the planning officer it's a two or three storey building - it will end up the same height as the buildings either side of it.

Headhunter said...

I don't really know that end of Tyrrwhit v well.... What's the WP Stone building? If the proposed building is out of keeping with the area, no matter how tatty that end of the road is the council should be refusing it, it still falls within the c area.

The builders who replaced the burnt out house at the station end of UBR rebuilt it very much in keeping with the other houses in the street so why should this happen on Tyrrwhitt?

lb said...

2a Tyrwhitt Road is part of the Talbot - the address isn't just misleading, it's wrong.

Are you quite sure this is the industrial building?

lb said...

OK, it is the W P Stone building (application here).

Vikki said...

It's definitely the W P Stone building.

On the application form submitted (you can see this online) they also say it's 2 Pretoria Parade which is probably the correct address. From looking at the ordanance (?) survey of the area the Planning Officer said the buildings and addresses were all a bit confused (some that have been divided up no longer are and vice versa) so complaining about the address alone wasn't grounds to stop the application.

Pete said...

I would be surprised if this goes ahead. The developer won't make any money out of it in the current market.

Headhunter said...

I'm going to have to do a ride by on the bike on the way home this evening. I can't place this building at all, but then I don't go up that way very often

Tressillian James said...

I agree - I kind of like the inter-war-ness of WP Stone - but it is the conservation area - so the new flats should be in keeping with the other houses around it - or be of architectual merit. Vicky - there's quite a few of us here that are interested in seeing that happen too

Bea said...

I am surprised the developer wants to build next to a burnt out shell that has been abandoned for years (other than - bizarrely - a brand new roof!).

Tressillian James said...

I'd say there are several things wrong with this development from a brief look:-

1) it's not of architectual merit
2) and the following are not in keeping with the conservation area: 'hanging' bay windows, roof shape and line, dormer windows to the front, a patchwork of white render and yellow brick, and a multiple layer 'stepped' back to the building.

The proposal to have hard standing at the front for 2 cars is also a C-Area no no - it should be laid to green.

I'd say let them build a pastiche of a Victorian villa - or something very modern and interesting - but not this 80s 'modern' style.

Funny how we were just talking about regeneration of that area....

Danja said...

That is truly horrible.

neanderthal d said...

The WP Stone building (light industrial - fabrication workshop) was built in 1947 or 1948.

There are change of use considerations (from light industrial to residential) in the planning application.

The Design and Access Statement by Preston Rubin Associates - Chartered Architects and Town Planning Consultants from Warminghurst, West Sussex makes interesting reading (http://acolnet.lewisham.gov.uk/ACOLLATEDOCS/36703_1.pdf):

The current WP Stone building is "rather severe" and "soon becomes quite massive and overbearing throughout the major length of the site" - [feel the aesthete in those comments]

The Shop next door - Taylors is "rather sterile in character" and "displays, in our view, a lack of interest by way of either form or effective detail". Furthermore, Taylors, "building gives the impression of being rather run down" and the flank wall on the right hand side of Taylors is an "eyesore" - [you get the feeling that the feeling that Mr Rubin isn't quite enjoying his visit to this little corner of SE London].

The ex-shop in the corner of Tyrwhitt Road and Loampit Hill "appear substantially derelict" - [very observant of Mr Rubin].

Durham House (on the other side of WP Stone) is more to Mr Rubin's liking and doesn't get dissed, i am also pleased to hear that the flat that i live in has been upgraded to an "Apartment".

The Talbot pub opposite the WP Stone building is obviously too much for Mr Rubin by now as it has a "disatrous colur scheme" - [the horror, the horror]. I imagine the decor of The Talbot put him off retiring there for a well deserved restorative drink after enduring his trip to Darkest Brockley.

I suspect he scooted down Tyrwhitt Road to recover at "a very pleasant open space known as Hilly Fields Park".

The rest of the case for demolition and development hinges on the current unsuitability of the current use of the building as a Fab Shop based on its location and inconvenience of use due to layout of the building. Converting the existing building to Residential use would also have "no future" as "the costs of altering and upgrading the building in relation to the very small number of dwellings which could be produced, would be prohibitive".

Also the new building will have four stories because "Roof levels have been carefully considered so that there is a reasonable progression in overall height and scale between Taylors and the new building, assisting also in scale transition up to the Villa eaves" [Durham House - so i am now delighted to announce that i am currently residing in an "Apartment" in a "Villa" no less].

So i am looking forward to an appropriate, tasteful, sympathetic and, dare i say it, uplifting design for the new residential use (eight two bed "apartments") building from our architect of refined sensibilities.

There is also provision for seven car parking spaces at the back of the building contrary to "the Burough's wish to minimise car travel and car ownership".

There is also mention of the site falling in a proposed "Controlled Parking Zone" as mentioned in Chapter Six of the Lewisham Unitary Development Plan "However, the controls have not been put into effect, largely, we are informed, because of the lack of sufficient parking generally".

Richard Elliot said...

Real shame that the Talbot renovations are delayed. Hopefully the credit crisis won't postpone or scale back their plans further.

However, the Credit Crisi might come to our rescue with the objectionable flats?

Anonymous said...

come on talbot people - let's get moving and deliver us a nice new asset to the area by christmas! sod the credit crunch!

Anonymous said...

We'll promise to come in for half a lager and a packet of crisps - if our mortgages will allow

tyrwhitt ali said...

I wouldn't have thought the local made it unsuitable for a shop. I walk past it pretty much every day and probably go the Londis more for emergency milk than I do the Brookbank shops, even though they're closer. But then what do I know....

Hugh said...

The WP Stone building is a delight compared to the detached house opposite with the builder's yard for a back garden and weeds 'n' wheelie bin collection for a front garden.

Sadly, that won't change and I don't see the derelict house on the corner becoming underlict for a good few years.

We're through the looking glass here, people. Bust is boom, and boom is bust.

lb said...

I did wonder about that detached house - I walk past it every morning. It's an impressively sized thing but in really terrible condition.

Tywrhitt Dean said...

In its current form, that end of Tyrwhitt Road is, frankly, an embarrassment. It is obvious that years of neglect have destroyed the appearance of what actually could be a genuinely attractive stretch of road. The area could be transformed by some work to just a few key buildings; the Talbot, the beautiful detached wreck a few houses up from the Talbot, the JW Stone building and the parade of shops on Loampit value. With luck, it looks like we are going to get some great news with the Talbot (and for what its worth, I spoke to the landlord at the Honor Oak a couple of weeks ago and he confirmed that the timetable is slipping) and I see this application as fantastic news. I took a look at the drawings and to my untutored eye they seem to have put a lot of effort into making it blend in with the surrounding buildings (exactly the “Victorian pastiche” someone else mentioned). Considered in isolation, in my opinion, the proposed building will look immeasurably better than the one it will replace (unless you have a great liking for light-industrial architecture).

More importantly though, I think the proposed building will have substantial ancillary benefits for that end of Tyrwhitt Road. Look at the floorplans and it is obvious from their size that these flats are going to be marketed to the sort of people who can afford to spend 250-350k (or maybe 250 quid next week if the papers are to be believed). Inevitably that means purchasers will be affluent and, yes probably, walking personifications of the various “young-urban-cash-rich-time-poor-professional-blah-blah-blah” cliché that we all love to hate (including me, and I’m one). Whatever you think about this, you end up with people who are likely to have a vested interest in making the surrounding area better. Replacing the industrial unit will make the area more attractive and increase the general desirability of the area which might make it viable to redevelop the aforementioned detached wreck. There would also be a ready-made client base for the new Talbot and it could also, in the long term, make the parade of shops a viable business prospect. Before you know it, the template virtuous circle of urban gentrification has turned and the area is renamed “Tyrwhitt Piazza” and you can’t move for web designers, free trade macbooks and organic Guardian media supplements.

I know there can be a strong feeling on this site that the ‘template virtuous circle of urban gentrification’ is not always to be welcomed, not least because it leads to rather too many M&S Simply Food’s, branches of Foxtons and people called Tarquin (and the associated urban ghettos of displaced people who got the bum ticket). I have some sympathy for this but I don’t think it will happen any time soon. What we might get if this building (and the Talbot) goes ahead though, is a much more visually appealing Tyrwhitt road. Yes, push the developers as far as possible to provide absolutely the best and most conservation-area compliant building we can. Yes, recognise that the credit crunch could mean things stalling for quite a while, but I can’t think why we shouldn’t be welcoming it in principle.

PS, I use the Taylors shop frequently and am very fond of it.

Headhunter said...

Personally, I do not object to cash rich/time poor Tarquins living in Brockley, my objection would be that it does not really fit with the conservation area. As TJ termed it, it has a very "80s modern" look to it on paper and the hard standing parking outside does not fit with the Victorian buildings around. I'm all for re-development of that stretch of Tyrrwhit, but not if it's completely out of keeping with the architecture of the area.

Hugh said...

Headhunter, those Tarquins pay your mortgage, don't they?

Or do you hunt other heads?

Headhunter said...

Exactly Hugh! I headhunt investment bankers, although most of my candidates/contacts live in West London and wouldn't have a clue where south east London, let alone Brockley was....

When they ask, I usually say I live in Greenwich, some of them have a vague concept of Greenwich and Blackheath, esp if they work in Canary Wharf.

Not that I'm ashamed of Brockers you understand, I just can't be bothered to explain where it is every time....

Hugh said...

Sure, I getcha.

lb said...

The problem's really one of materials. Look at the detailing of the building, its proportions, its roofline (from the front, anyway) and it's pretty close to a straight late-Victorian pastiche. To be really close would necessitate pouring a lot more money into materials, building techniques, etc, making the development rather less viable.

Ask most architects why a given building looks so bad and they'll usually answer "budgetary constraints". This is why I usually prefer to see a well-designed modern building rather than a paastiche done on the cheap.

Do dah said...

The Pretoria Parade proposal sounds like it is a good thing, as long as Conservation area building and materials regulations are adhered to.

Tyrwhitt Michael said...

I go away for a week and all hell breaks loose in Tyrwhitt Road.

Lb has hit the nail on the head when he/she says it looks wrong because of the proportions. No tall Victorian ceilings - get more floors in - so the windows are square rather than rectangular.

Still overall like Dean I welcome developmant at this end of the road so I won't object but then I won't vote in favour either.

Hanging bays do occur on Tyrwhitt Road by the way but on the back of some of the Houses.

Incidentally I think I have mentioned it before but the fate of the corner shop and the large detatched house (no 8) are inextricably linked having been owned by the same man until he died at the end of 2007. The fact nothing has been done to them in the last 6 months suggests an inheritance dispute which could go on for ever....

Sell up then argue over the cash please!!

Bea said...

Having read through the planning application and looked at the elevation drawings I think the plan is, in general, fine. There is also obviously a need for the factory to relocate to a more appropriate location.

The architect has taken into consideration the conservation area and will therefore be using yellow bricks, reconstituted stone decorative brackets and (as opposed to what has been stated here) there will in fact be a front garden (Twyritt Road entrance). The parking will be on the Lewisham Way / Loampit Vale side. Although the front elevation is not the same in looks as other buildings in the immediate vicinity, the architect has drawn on other architectural elements in the area and a similar bay window look (that goes up the whole length of the house – rather than just two or three levels) is on Montague Avenue.

The one thing I have reservations about are the windows. The dormer windows are out-of-keeping with other buildings nearby and aren’t used anywhere else in the conservation area (that I am aware of). It has an eighties look because they are smaller and lack the grand proportions of original Victorian sashes. However, as has been mentioned this has probably to do with floor height and squashing more flats into the available space.

Although this development will be a huge improvement to that section of the road, I agree it is important to get the new building right!

Tressillian James said...

Bea - I think you'll find there is parking for cars out back and two on Tyrwhitt Road.

The double bays - unless I am looking at the front elevation wrongly - are suspended and their is a mixture of brick and render - which is unusual for the area.

However I may not have an eye for technical drawings - but I can't see the detail that overly ties it in at all.

Danja said...

It's the worst kind of cheesy pastiche - whoever said it looked an '80s Barratts development nailed it in one.

lb said...

[TJ] You're right - it looks like render on the bays to me - which as you say is not really consistent with Victorian practice. You could probably get away with that kind of thing if you were imitating an inter-war semi, though.

I expect this is a cost thing again - to do the whole bay in facing brick would be pretty pricey, though to be honest I think that with modern frames (and window proportions, as you point out elsewhere) a brick bay would actually look extremely 'heavy' and unpleasant.

Tyrwhitt Dean said...

TJ, page 9 of the design statement says "The main pedestrian access into the building is via the frontage on Tyrwhitt Road. No car parking is contemplated here in order to keep the front forecourt for landscaping and planting"

Bea said...

TJ

What I read in the Design and Access Statement is as follows:

“The main pedestrian access into the building is via the frontage on Tyrwhitt Road. No car parking is contemplated here in order to leave the front forecourt area free for landscaping and planting.

Service access and car parking for residents, guests, and service-callers, is via the existing access in use from Loampit Hill.”

Unless they say there is parking on Tyrwhitt Road somewhere else in the documents?

Headhunter said...

That house on UBR was rebuilt in a pretty much identical style to the house it replaced (the one that burnt down). Surely if the builders there can effectively reproduce a Victorian building, why can't the builders of this development?

Tressillian James said...

HH - I really do agree with you - they have obviously been able to do so in a cost effective manner

Bea - you are right - I was misreading from exisiting parking.

Hugh said...

When is the Brockley Foxes Vigilante Posse going to rip down all the satellite dishes infringing the conservation area rules?

Headhunter said...

Have the Brockley Foxes spread their wings and moved into conservation area enforcement vigilante-ism then? Good on 'em!

Tressilliana said...

Tyrwhitt Michael, I may be wrong but I don't think the executors/administrators will be able to sell anything until they get probate/letters of administration. If there was no will or some problem with the will there will unfortunately be a delay in getting the buildings sold - if, of course, the person/people inheriting want to sell.

Tyrwhitt Michael said...

Tresilliana

I know, my plea was in hope rather than expectation....

Anonymous said...

Had to smile when I saw this. I moved away from Brockley and Tyrwhitt Road 10 years ago but I have very fond memories of the area and my lovely flat ( 32b - I should never have sold it!)

I used to wish even then that the derelict greengrocer would turn into a coffee shop/deli, and that the Talbot would magically reopen as a friendly gastro pub. The DLR opened in my time there though so at least one of my prayers was answered!

Good luck everyone - I'll be keeping my fingers crossed for you as well!

georgie

Tyrwhitt Michael said...

Woke up this morning to find the Council had desecrated a much loved Conservation Area road with luminous yellow graffitti comprising pictures of dogs having a dump.

I know they have done it elsewhere but I thought we had escaped.

This rape of the pavements being that it is self-inflicted is a much worse betrayal of the principles of the Conservation Area than Speedicars' sign, IMHO.

Oh and whilst I 'm having a rant a flat at the north end of the road has just installed U-PVC windows and advertised said fact with a big sign giving the Contractor's details. Any chance of a Council enforcement officer noticing this I wonder?

Rant over

Tressilliana said...

I think it would help if you notified them, TM.

Anonymous said...

UPVC windows? PANIC!!

Make sure dog shits are at the top of the agenda!

LewishamLovely said...

Anon - why designate a conservation area if it's not treated as such? the council has obviously invested time and threfore money in the creation and ongoing protected status of the area. TM isn't panicking over the UPVC windows as you exageratedly put it. A lot of residents of the area question the council's haphazard enforcement of its own rules.
In fact, your response to it is less measured than TM's.

M said...

I don't understand why some people on here get so snarky when someone objects to the area being spoilt.
Why is it seen as snobby not to want to live in a shithole?
Tell you what Anonymous, let me know where you live and I'll come round and empty my bins in your garden - if you complain or clean it up you're a curtain twitching NIMBY...

Tressillian James said...

The dog signs really annoy me - they are crude and make the area look tawdry. They also send the wrong message about spray painting on roads and walls. Can't believe this is happening without a) Broc Soc being consulted or raising objections; and b) people who live on the road being consulted.

I also think this is a typical cheap response to complaints ( and probably off the back of the recent dog by-laws the council have introduced) without any evidence that it actually works.

I've e-mailed the councils Highways dept who I have been told will have done this:
highways@lewisham.gov.uk

I also hope the councillors get involved.

And to all the comments that are to follow: I know it is just a sign - but a stencil of a bright yellow dog taking a dump is an eyesore and almost as bad as the real thing itself.

Tyrwhitt Michael said...

I won't be reporting the windows because to do so you have to give your full name and address.

I don't want to get into arguments with my neighbours and if they want to reduce the value of their flat, that is their business. If someone else such as the Brockley Society wants to take it up they are welcome to do so.

I will however protest to my councillor Sue Luxton about the stencils which I like Tressillian James, think are cheap and tawdry.....

Tyrwhitt Michael said...

I thought this discussion about stencils was familiar. That is because we have already had it back in October 2008 under the thread entitled "Pavement Fouling".

There is even a picture of the stencil.

What goes around comes around...

Anonymous said...

Having been away for a few weeks I was even more critical of my road upon my return. UPVC windows are rubbish, unsightly and do nothing to retain the look and feel of the area. I have reported them, I also reported the houses opposite the 'newest ones', the council did nothing, why move here and do this, I dont care that I had to give the council my name and address, they assured me of confidentiality. The council need someone who cares about this area to monitor, windows, dog shit and the growing number of lazy dog owners, and satellite dishes, the rest of the time Im happy and content and feel quite passionately about this area Ive lived most of life in. I wish everyone would or could feel the same! Maisie

Anonymous said...

Sky dishes are a simmple and common addition to many households.

Anonymous said...

Yes and they can be put on roof tops and o the back of properties. No-one's taking them away - just asking everyone to be considerate

Anonymous said...

UPVC Windows and Satellite Dishes: further to a conversation with Lewisham Enforcement Officer they did confirm that any notifications to them regarding and enforcement issue in the Brockley Conservation area will not require your name or address being shared. Anyone wishing to report such findings should do so to jody.solomons@lewisham.gov.uk. To the person who thinks a satellite dish is a simple and regular addition to a house, given there is no cable in this area it is the rule of the Conservation Area that planning permission be sought for any satellite dish which is visible in the street. Sadly, the non policed issues which are overlooked have allowed this beautiful area to suffer and I feel before long UPVC windows will become commonplace as there are a number which have been left in place. Im all for people living their lives but within the rules they chose to accept by default by living in the Conservation Area. If more people state that these issues are not acceptable we could retain the beauty and respect the houses, people and are command.
Maisie

Headhunter said...

Many of the UPVC windows are quite old I think, you can tell if they're recent by whether they have the ventilation strips at the top, I think those only came in in around 2002. Not that older UPVC is better, but did conservation area rules cover them in the 80s and 90s?

It'll be hard to complain about the new UPVC windows as most people here don't know what house number they were put in at.

Colleague of mine here put UPVC DG in their flat in Notting Hill and the council there came down on them like a tonne of bricks with a week. They had to rip them out and replace with wood framed at huge expense! Can't see Lewisham BC ever being as efficient as that though....

Tressillian James said...

Actually I think UPVC is one thing the council does come down heavily on. Yuo are right HH if they went in before the establishment of the conservation area then nothing can be done - however, anything since has to be removed - and they enforce. The place next to mine in Breakspears Road had to remove all of theirs.

Latest Tweets

Brockley Central Label Cloud

Click one of the labels below to see all posts on that subject. The bigger the label, the more posts there are!