Brockley Common - the official response

Following the recent controversy over the quality of materials that will be used in the construction of the next phase of Brockley Common, the ever-diligent JPM sought official reaction from Lewisham Council.

The response he received came from the Executive Director for Regeneration, Malcom Smith and we reproduce it almost in full below. Though it's understandable that the Council should seek value for money from public works projects, the conversations we have had with the BXAG recently suggest that the BXAG has unreasonably been kept at arms length during the most recent stages of the project's development. The BXAG conceived the project and provided a lot of free consultancy time from the group's members who include professional architects and planners.

We hope that, given the latest delay to the project, there is still time to get all sides back around the table to discuss how a project can be delivered that the community will feel proud of. If the end result of years of work and and pain is a basic tarmac ramp then it will have been a colossal waste of time and energy, to rival the aborted attempts to improve Brockley Cross itself.

The quality of materials used will be essential to the project's success. If the budget doesn't allow for the materials specified, then some lateral thinking is required to find an alternative solution. But that kind of solution will be hard to reach if the Council won't engage the BXAG properly.

Here is the letter:

The Council has worked very closely with the Brockley Cross Action Group (BXAG) to realise the construction of a DDA-compliant ramp and steps to replace the rather severe ramp that currently links Coulgate Street and the ticket office to Brockley railway station and the public footbridge that leads onward to Mantle Road. The Council has held extensive meetings with the BXAG's designer and has shared global costing for the work. The term contractor's rates are commercially sensitive and remain confidential.
Located entirely on land owned by Network Rail, the project requires a licence before any site works can commence. Unfortunately, it has not been possible to carry out any physical work on site. The loss of the project this year is very disappointing, but it is hoped that, subject to funding being available to be slipped into 2009/10 and the terms of the licence reviewed, that the works can be carried out in early 2009/10.
BXAG has been very proactive with the project but from the press release seen and at various meetings does not always seem to have widely appreciated the constraints within which the Council has to operate. I would like to take this opportunity to explain the background to events.
The agreed pre-works layout comprised a ramp up to circulating area adjacent to the ticket office via an intermediate hairpin turn at a performance area, with [southern] steps leading up to the circulation area and other [northern] steps to the performance area.
The project was originally planned to proceed at the end of 2007/08 and continue into early 2008/09 as there were two separate budgets attributed to each of those years. For various reasons it was not possible to proceed with the works and part of the budget expired. With additional funding, the project was resurrected in August 2008 and despite the concerted efforts of Council and Network Rail officers no acceptable agreement with regard to insurance coverage could be reached in time that would permit the works to be completed before the close March 2009.
It has been impressed upon the BXAG that it is the Council that is responsible for the procurement and execution of the works and as a publicly accountable authority the Council has to deliver the project within the available auditable budget and on time. Based upon the state of licence negotiations at the time of the South London Press article you refer to, BXAG was advised that work would have to commence late in November if completion was to be achieved within the time available, and that costs would have to be contained within the budget. The materials BXAG prefer are hand-made to order and significantly more expensive than the quality materials the Council uses everywhere else in the Borough - it was made quite clear that delivery of the materials would have to meet the requirements of the works programme.
In the event, and notwithstanding the good intentions of BXAG and its representations to the specialist materials supplier, the paving, high edging units and cladding materials were quoted at £90,000 to only supply, a sum well in excess of what had been discussed in earlier meetings where the supplier was present. In addition, half this sum was to be paid in advance. Given that the Council had still not gained authority to work on the site and was unable to issue an order to the contractor, delivery of all the materials in time was questionable. Advance payment on materials for works that could not be guaranteed to start would have been a high risk to the Council in terms of unknown ongoing liquidity of the supplier and future safe storage, and associated costs thereof, of any stock delivered.
The budget for the project was £182,000. The BXAG ideal would have cost £295,000. Schemes using alternative paving systems were therefore assembled - asphalt [£193,000], block paving [£183,000] and small format paving slabs [£197,000]. All sums included a 10% contingency. Initially the block paving option was adopted, due to its ready availability and to meet the budget, but as a compromise, and with ever reducing construction time available whilst awaiting the licence, the project was curtailed to incorporate only the ramp, southern steps, circulating area and small section of the performance area but using BXAG-preferred hand-made paving units only, in-lieu of the block paving, which were understood to be available in stock.
Thanks to JPM for his work.

77 comments:

The Cat Man said...

The good thing about deflation is that private sector work will become cheaper in a yr or so therefore reducing the budgetted cost. The public sector budget, for the moment, will not reduce much as the government wants to increase public spending to boost demand!

Maybe we should do nothing about this and wait. I DO NOT want to see a bloody tarmac ramp after all this hard work by the BCAG or the local residents.

Cant we start a collection fund or something?

Comment said...

Ok, I've read this it will take some time to digest. But initial impressions. It doesn't paint BXAG in the best light
"does not always seem to have widely appreciated the constraints within which the Council has to operate.".
Considering that they are mutual stakeholders in this project, it's not the most constructive form of words (pardon the pun) maybe this is the council's strategy to antagonise and frustrate the group.

"It has been impressed upon the BXAG that it is the Council that is responsible for the procurement and execution of the works..."

The letter suggests there is little option but to go ahead with the cheaper materials, if the project is to be completed within this seemingly arbitrary time constraint.

"the Council has to deliver the project within the available auditable budget and on time"

BXAG should consider holding on until things, such as the licence negotiations settle there may well be more room to manoeuvre after that time.

Brockley Kate said...

Can anyone clarify - I thought BXAG were contributing funding to the scheme - is this the case? If so, how much?

nobbly brick said...

Malcolm Smith is a master at Council-speak.

Paddyom said...

It seems pretty clear that Lewisham Council could not complete a tasteful development for all the rice in China - just look at the state of the main commercial centres in the Borough i.e. Lewisham, Catford etc... no control over their presentation and an absolute emphasis on all things ugly (bright blue plastic bins for example...nice!). When a community refuses to accept this hideous approach to arcitecture and works for the better of everyone to improve the quality of a development they get a message from the Council which pretty much reads as 'dont get in our way'.

Anonymous said...

The thing about bright blue plastic bins is that you can see them a mile away - whereas a tasteful wicker/wood bin may not be as obvious to all but the very mung-iest of depositors.

Danja said...

I suspect oh-so-proudly antimung anonymii just throw their litter and chicken bones on the floor anyway, so I don't see how it makes any difference.

The blue bins and Lewisham's general get-up is very tacky 80s-looking. Sadder and more dated than the junk-shop aesthetic that antimungers hate.

mintness said...

Lewisham Blue is undoubtedly a particularly horrible colour - "does that shade even appear in nature?" was a recent visitor's comment. (Then again, she loved the spray-painted steaming dog turds, so maybe she's not the best judge.)

They could at least tone it down a little and make it feel marginally less outdated. Though I suppose the cost of such a mass rebranding/repainting/resignage (so to speak) would be prohibitive.

Brockley Nick said...

I don't accept the argument the Council make that all materials used in public works must adhere to the lowest common denominator standards. And I don't believe that they apply logic to work in Blackheath. Why can't Brockley have one thing that is a bit better than average. It is supposed to be a community project we can all be proud of, fund raising has taken years. That ought to justify a better quality brick...

Rooster said...

Absolutely, these people have put in time and effort for FREE for YEARS to get this project off the ground and then to be sold short at the last minute. No Lewisham, NOT THIS TIME.


This is the new age of RESPONSIBILITY, I want the community's voice on this, not the council's. What does the community want? the cheap materials now or the better quality materials later (date specified).

Let's have a vote on this a true public consultation.

Brockley Kate said...

It makes me sad to say that writing for this blog has made me much more cynical about our council, but it is unfortunately true.

I agree with Nick that their 'arguments' against making this scheme nice are utterly specious. But the council is making it absolutely clear that it doesn't give a toss what we think, isn't it?

Bea said...

Having read the letter and followed the development of the project for the last four years makes me wonder how on earth anything innovative gets done by Lewisham Council!

It should be embracing the Obama slogan of “Yes, we can!”

Instead all I seem to hear is “… there's the insurance, and the cost of paving… and the budget deadline etc etc…”

They need too pull their fingers out and stop presenting us with yet more excuses!!

jpm said...

Nobbly Brick, you certainly have that right.

I complained some time back to Councillor Johnson about the planned mental health unit at 1-3 Ashby road.

Although it was turned down, both by the planning department and Inspector, the developer has the building tenanted, and has seemingly changeed the use of the building.

He is paying residential rates on a commercial building? A huge loss to the public purse, unlawful, and all under the watchful eye of Malcolm Smith. (If you have any background I would be interested.)

One wonders what the 'demotivation' is both there and in Brockley in general?

The Cat Man said...

The area in question used to be part of 'brockley common', surely we the present day community have a certain amount of rights over that bit of land?

Can we start a fund or something? Even if we all contributed somethign like £20, which isn't alot - then i would guess that gives about £600 to £1,000 which is a good start for getting something abit better.

How about the localities funds? If we used both Telegraph Hills and Brockleys, that gives an extra £20k!

Tressillian James said...

Working with both the Brockley Society and the Brockely Leaseholders group - this seems typical of our council, who will steamroller things through if necessary. The best thing we could do is claim that is it adjacent to the conservation area and the gateway to Brockley (Coulgate Street - which should justify better materials) and demand a public consultation. When the consultation is held then people need to TURN UP. Only numbers of local residents will cause the council to think again.

oryx said...

'And I don't believe that they apply logic to work in Blackheath.'

I don't live in this bit of Brockley and am largely unaffected by this scheme, but I think you raise a very valid point there, Nick, and one perhaps worth raising with the council.

I've spent years on and off working for councils and with wealthier/snobbier areas, 'what they want, they get' is a rule of thumb.

lb said...

Well, having read the Council response in detail, the "Council-speak" seems perfectly clear:

1. Network Rail (on whose land the works are being done) couldn't agree with the Council on insurance issues, hence the delay - I guess the number of commuters using the site daily makes it potentially more complex to fully cover.

2. The BXAG's 'preferred supplier' suddenly came out with a figure for the paving much higher than had previously been costed (at meetings where the supplier was actually present), and then demanded half payment up front. Cost aside, this way of paying would have resulted in the public authority shelling out for materials that they couldn't, at that time, be sure would even be used. Hence the alternative plan.

Anyway, by the sound of it the real sticking point is Network Rail, plus the demands of the specialist supplier. The Council just sound like they're trying to be responsible with the public budget under the circumstances. I can't imagine that any authority would spend a large amount of money on non-standard materials with no guarantees.

Monkeyboy said...

We had a sub contractor who turned down a juicy job because Metronet/LUL insist on some onerous insurance terms. Had to insure damage to LU infrastructure, passengers and accept liability for disruption to service (loss of revenue)etc... etc.. so can be a bit scary. Could be that? Would be worth asking for specifics.

nobbly brick said...

thanks for the explanation lb - was that for the benefit of the people who weren't able to read and undertstand the perfectly clear original document?

Alice and the Cat said...

Got out the wrong side of bed, nobbly? LB was just giving her understanding of the issue, just as everyone else had. Just because hers was probably a better and more balanced interpretation doesn't mean it wasn't worth reading. The discussion had veered in the direction of blaming the Council for everything rather than seeing that there were some legitimate points in their response. LB was right to remind the discussion of them.

Rooster said...

The emphasis on the council is the right one, they have a no can do attitude, highlighting problems and then pushed to come to a solution they offer this compromise, which is not a reasonable one given the work that the BXAG have done over the years.

The council doesn't fight hard enough for us, they always want to the bare minimum and its not acceptable. It's fine to read and reiterate what Malcolm Smith said but you have to read between the lines and look at the wider context which is what most posters save for Lb did.

The Cat Man said...

I agree. But can we please do something about this, this time instead of moaning about it.

I want to see people giving contributions to the common, come on - cough up your dough. Lets make this a private initiative and set up a brockley common trust.

The Cat Man said...

...and I will make this promise to you. I will give £500 pounds to the cause if 9 other people match it.

Thats £5,000 pounds. A very good start.

Anonymous said...

They already have our money. The funds allocated come from taxes of various flavours.

Besides if you contribute you'll only want a statue of Princess Di or Josef Goebbels.

Anonymous said...

I would gladly contribute to local initiatives such as this - £500 is a little steep though Mr. Cat, happy to chuck in £100 though if thats any use?

Honor Oak Park blog allows its local improvement group to fundraise on its pages which i would definitely support for Brockley. HOK always looks really well...

Paddyom said...

Sorry forgot to type in my name on that last anon message, it was me...

The Cat Man said...

I think we have just identified nick's next poll for this site - ask the readers how much they would guarantee to pay,i.e. £20, £50, £100, £250, £500 and based on the votes we can tally it up and see how much we have - and whether it is enough!

Another anon said...

I'm not sure the issue is just money it's about political will.

Also I think everyone in the area should be made fully aware of the situation and be given an opportunity to donate.

Anonymous said...

Aren't we allowed to claim some of the ££££ we've paid in C tax?We should break up from Lewisham council and create our own.Local taxes for local people I say!

max said...

That's exactly how the American war of independence started.

Tamsin said...

Passport to Pimlico

Monkeyboy said...

yeah, but what constitutes 'local'? Will I have to take my single estate olive oil and f**k off back to north London, all the while being chased al the way by a baying local militia?

lb said...

[Rooster] My post was actually attempting to look at the reasons behind the delay, rather than (as you put it) "reading between the lines" and coming up with directionless (and largely baseless) whingeing such as your own "they always want to [do] the bare minimum".

Saying these kind of things about the Council - for all the system's faults - isn't exactly going to help advance the project, is it? My point was that there are a number of strong reasons - which shouldn't necessarily be disregarded as 'excuses' - behind the delay and behind the offering of alternative materials. The first, that the project is located entirely on Network Rail's land and the authority and contractors therefore have to dance to Network Rail's tune, can't really be changed. But there might be a number of workarounds or ways of getting things moving if the factors that have meant the Council have had to reassess the project can be addressed. These might include changes to materials, guarantees about funding, and stuff like that.

But are you really interested in this or are you just interested in giving the Council a hard time?

lb said...

Actually, Nick pretty much summed it up: "some lateral thinking is required to find an alternative solution.

Let's face it, I'm sure the Council would much rather see a successful project - that they can then use in publicity - than a failure.

jpm said...

Cat Man,"Thats £5,000 pounds. A very good start."

At the end of the 19th Century the people of Brockley got together and purchased the land that is now Hilly Fields, so a contribution by like-minded Brockleyites is also apt.But is it £500 or £5000 per person?

We should also try to include any Section 106 contributions. There's absolutely no reason why most of these should be pushed towards Lewisham Town Centre. A transport hub would benefit greatly.

nobbly brick said...

The council would never admit to a failure in anything - it goes against their 'positive' ethos, and the particular Council mouthpiece explained very clearly where they stood in the carefully worded letter (that I think needs little explanation).

Obviously the Council is obliged to cater to a wide range of needs - chief of which is the requirement to stay within a budget, one of the sources of that budget being the rates that you and I (may) pay.

But the Council also has to show that it listens to the concerns of the residents, and it undoubtedly has targets set by central government that it has to meet. These are all token targets of course and a chief concern of the Council will be to meet them in whatever way it can to appease central Government. Residents are a long long way down the Councils list of priorities.

There is also, certainly amongst higher level Council employees and some councillors, a greater need to satisfy their own maladjusted egos and carve out their career path at the expense of whatever long term chaos they inflict on residents - this is far more dangerous - and you can witness this very clearly simply by going along to an open Council meeting or more particularly, planning meetings.

Try it sometime.

jpm said...

Could anyone please explain why

"The term contractor's rates are commercially sensitive and remain confidential."?

Also, it seems to me that the construction of a ramp that leads to the ticket office (and not to Platform One) is somewhat flawed. Far better to leave the ramp until such time as access to BOTH platforms can be achieved by wheelchair users. Now there's a saving.

nobbly brick said...

Because they are contractors - they agree a rate at which they do whatever work they are contracted to do - if the sum was made public another contractor could use that information if the tender was renegotiated.

When the Council sells off land to form 'developers landbanks' it won't tell you how much they sell it off for either.

The Council will then go on to spend this money on lengthy consultations with private contractors

;)

The Cat Man said...

JPM, my original post said £500 per person, if another 9 people (i.e. 10 people) contributed the same we would have £5,000 pounds!

However, I think if Nick had a poll asking how much people would contribute for sure, i.e. £20, .... £50 etc.... then based on the number of votes per amount, we could tally it up and see how much more money can be raised to do something with the common!

I think it should also be set up as a trust, and administered by one of the local groups around here

nobbly brick said...

Only another £108,000 to go, not including contingency...

The Cat Man said...

Why be so pessemistic? We are talking about additional monies alongside that already obtained.

nobbly brick said...

Nope, not pessimistic, but it's a lot of money to raise.

Personally I wouldn't give any money because I never use Brockley station and I rarely visit the shops in Brockley, but I do go to Hilly Fields, which is in Ladywell.

;)

The Cat Man said...

fair enough, it is for the local community after all!

jpm said...

Surely the information on costs would be made available to 'investors'? If I was to make a contribution I would want to know how competetive the tender was.

No one seems to have picked up on my comment that the ramp itself is obsolete, and this should shave costs.

Rooster said...

LB we can all read and assess what was said. My comments and many others is going beyond what said and looking towards solutions, which is what we want the council to do.

A project is about overcoming problems, and obstacles so that you get a solution. Using cheap materials is not a solution that many are happy with.

It is not whingeing and it most definitely not directionless. It is about drawing a line in the stand and saying we don't accept what was offered therefore go back to the drawing board.

I hope you can understand that, otherwise just don't to come on here to insult people.

Anonymous said...

Rooster, you insulted LB first!

Tamsin said...

Haven't looked at the plans as I don't use Brockely Station and life is short, but jpm on the face of it has a very good point. Of what use is half disabled access so those needing it can only travel one way? It's not as if you need to get to the ticket office to make enquiries or buy tickets in advance - that can be done more readily on-line.

Wild Bill said...

"Also, it seems to me that the construction of a ramp that leads to the ticket office (and not to Platform One) is somewhat flawed. Far better to leave the ramp until such time as access to BOTH platforms can be achieved by wheelchair users. Now there's a saving."

This is a good point. What's the point of building a wheelchair accessible ramp here? It wouldn't make any difference to getting up and down the stairs on platform one, and platform two can already be accessed via the gate on the side. It would make no difference to any disabled person, they'll still only be able to make a one way trip. Or am I missing something here?

Bea said...

A ramp with a gentler gradient is needed because it provides access across the pedestrian bridge to the other side of Brockley (offering a safer crossing than the double round about at Brockley Cross). It doesn’t only go to the ticket office!

The current ramp is very steep and difficult for people with wheelchairs, buggies and bikes.

Anonymous said...

the station will be step free (apparently). I expect others are installing a small lift or two? Has been done elsewhere. Acton town has one

Anonymous said...

I think everyone has a right to give their opinion on that situation (even if that opinion is negative to Lewisham council) without LB patronising them. State your argument LB, but don't call others whingers; it would seem BXAG are also pretty annoyed at the council on this one

Brockley Kate said...

But don't the anti-bike railings on the bridge to/from Westside make the crossing impossible for wheelchairs anyway?

Headhunter said...

Exactly! How would you manage to get a wheelchair through the gate things unaided. Yuo would definitely need someone to help get you through

Bea said...

I think they are wide enough as they are wide enough for a buggy with big bags swinging from the handle bars to get through - so should manage a wheel chair.

They just stop any thing on wheels running away and crashing into the ticket machine!

But the steep gradient does make the barriers awkward to manoeuvre round.

drakefell debaser said...

The design of Brockley Station is very poor (the station itself looks like a temporary structure) and providing wheel chair access to platform 1 will be no small task. I think a lift is the only way to do this with the small amount of space available at the Westside exit.

If the money was there it would be great to start again with a better thought out design. A proper station could be built above the railway line (similar to New Cross Gate) with an entrance from the bridge on Endwell Rd as well as a side entrance on Coulgate St. Proper lifts and stairs direct to the platforms from a central hub like station would be so much better than the pokey obstacle course that is there at the moment.

Anonymous said...

You don't need to go over the double roundabout to get to the other side of the tracks

Headhunter said...

There surely must've been an original Victorian station building at Brockley. I wonder what happened to it. When Brockley was established as a stop, it would have been quite affluent with all the newly built big houses in the now conservation area. People living in houses like that wouldn't have been happy without a proper ticket office and waiting room, surely? At what point did that temporary concrete hut get built?

Brockley Kate said...

Isn't the original stationmaster's house by the Brockley Cross roundabout?

Bea said...

Anon - that rather depends on your starting point and end destination and the zebra crossing there has steps down on one side – so not great either for pedestrians with wheels.

Tamsin said...

There were two, I think, and the station-master's house for one of them is still very distinguishable on the left hand side of the road as you go from Brockley Cross under the railway bridge.

lb said...

[Anon@wheneveritwas] Yeah, I've stated my argument, but I think I was right to pick up on the tone of some of the other comments. Here's why:

"they have a no can do attitude, highlighting problems and then pushed to come to a solution they offer this compromise"

Well, let's see. Assuming there is a real problem (which there is, or rather, there are two - the insurance issue and the supplier's cost hike) what would you rather them do? Not highlight it? Ignore it and then not tell you about it? Isn't offering a compromise solution within the constraints available essentially a "can-do" attitude?

"The council doesn't fight hard enough for us, they always want to the bare minimum"

On the evidence of what, this one incident (when they have actually tried to offer a compromise solution? Give me some other examples to prove the Council does not "fight hard" or that they "always" (and if that isn't whingeing, I don't know what is) "do the bare minimum".

Sorry, if people respond to my posts saying I've somehow missed the point (which is what happened, as another Anonymous kindly pointed out) then I'm going to back up my argument. Something people saying "oh deary me, the Council always does the bare minimum" have signally failed to do.

The Cat Man said...

I think the real reason why the council is acting re. disabled slope is at present they have a slope which does not meet legal requirements.

Irespective of how useful it actually it (i.e. station access or other) they will try and correct it to stop people claiming money against them and to lower professional liability.

Its pure risk management - they do not care about the people who actually use the station/nearby facilities.

And on a related issue, how many people have you seen with pushchairs/cycles using the ramp over the footbridge? I have seen many. Does the exsiting ramp stop them using it? Not really.

Its a complete waste of money, and its not even what the people want.

Kate - yes it is.

lb said...

Well, if you'd rather pull a "real reason" out of your fundament than actually read the information, that's up to you.

Rooster said...

This is from a post on this site today regarding problems with trees and network rail.

"We have also got in touch with Lewisham council, which does not want to get involved,..."


My comments

"The council doesn't fight hard enough for us, they always want to the bare minimum"

were based on amalagm of these types of reports and my own experiences with Lewisham council.

I don't know why it's so hard for you to understand where people are coming from on this and why the react as they do. They are fed up with being let down by the council.

jpm said...

I agree with Andy... I certainly had no problem using that ramp with a buggy.

People on bikes shouldn't be riding them in that location either.

It's a falsehood to suggest that someone in a wheelchair needs to negotiate 'two roundabouts'. You just trace your merry way around the building, a longer journey perhaps, but do-able.

The railway iteslf will be forced to comply with the Disabilty Discriminations Act, and it will later pay for the works. Please do the costing without disabled access.

On that point though there is a Victorian tunnel beneath the old stationmaster's office, and that could be redesigned to incorporate a more gentle slope to and from BOTH platforms.

monkeyboy said...

a small point. The whole step free thing is not just for the disabled. Tfls policy includes those with shopping, prams and the elderly. They refer to them collectivldy as 'mobility impaired'. The elderly are growing demographic group. We could put them down? Be interesting to see the tfl plan for the station.

Tamsin said...

Are they in Brockley, though? I was collating the stats. this morning and Brockley, Telegraph Hill and New Cross are three of the four lowest wards in Lewisham for the percentage of population over 60 as far as the 2001 Census was concerned and I would have thought that, if anything, the proportion was decreasing over the past seven years.

Wild Bill said...

"Anon - that rather depends on your starting point and end destination and the zebra crossing there has steps down on one side – so not great either for pedestrians with wheels."

If you're starting out on the other side of the roundabout in a wheelchair you're screwed either way. However you can get to the other side of the railway from Coulgate Street without crossing a single road, if that's your starting point (which it would have to be to use the footbridge in any case).

Is there really a secret underground tunnel near the station? How exciting!

Gotta say, if it's true that this is just a temporary fix to meet regulations until a real rebuild has to happen, I don't see that it makes too much difference whether the paving is organic or not.

Tressillian James said...

LB - I have to agree with Rooster and the another anon on the council wanting to 'do the bare minimum' - as seen in the extensive dealings that the Leaseholders Association have had with both the council and their representitives Brockley PFI. There are plenty of examples of this.

Headhunter said...

The station masters house by the double roundabouts can't have ever been the actual station building though can it? I assume that was where the station master lived. Surely there must have been an actual station building with ticket offices etc. I don't think Brockley Lane station had a building, or perhaps it had a wooden one, but Brockley station may have done.

I'm intrigued to hear more about that tunnel under the station masters house though JPM! Tell us more....

fabhat said...

I've got a Brockley society postcard of Brockley Lane station - and I can see no station structure. Just two platforms, which look like they're made of wide planks and an attactive balustrade and some elegant streetlamps. I'll see if I can post it somehow. The station staff are lurking at the end of the platform chatting - no change there...

jpm said...

Oops, forgotten where I read about the tunnel. I'll get back on that one.

jpm said...

Headhunter and Co, follow this link for a revelation about the 'secret' tunnel at Brockley.

I read it some time back, and confused it slightly. Certainly tantalising though. Maybe we should do a recce?

http://www.subbrit.org.uk/sb-sites/stations/b/brockley_lane/index.shtml

Tressillian James said...

The station became the junk shop by the bride that burnt down 2/3 years ago

nobbly brick said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Tamsin said...

Is this last comment on the right thread?

nobbly brick said...

no

Brockley Central Label Cloud