Plans for New New Cross Gate Unveiled

The initial concept designs for a major redevelopment of New Cross Gate have been relesaed by Sainsbury's ahead of a public exhibition.

The development, which Cllr Alexander referenced here, is one of the biggest opportunities in the borough and, if done right, could remedy one of the greatest crimes perpetrated on the urban fabric of Lewisham in many years - the set-back Sainsbury's, petrol station and retail sheds which suck much of the life and character out of this end of New Cross.

The initial concept designs will be unveiled properly in a couple of weeks, but brilliantly helpful Telegraph Hill resident Nick, who will soon be writing for c&binet, sent us some scans of a leaflet that was recently posted through his door.

The plan is to create a new streetscape on the approach to a remodelled Sainsbury's. The scheme is in its early stages and we find it hard to tell how well it would work, but we're strongly in favour of creating new "streets" rather than cul-de-sacs, so that's one thing in this plan's favour. What do you think?

Sainsburysnewcrossgate

113 comments:

Anonymous said...

Wow @ the ideas and wow @ the ipaper widget you got going on there Nick.

Brockley Kate said...

What's a 'sustainability hub'? Does it mean 'recycling bins'?!

Also, this plan doesn't appear to alter the position of the Sainsburys store or its car park, so you'd still have to walk through the car park to get to it, which I understood was one of the things they were looking at changing.

Wild Bill said...

So long as they keep a nice spot clear for that beggar to sit by the carpark (weather permitting) and ask for money while smoking weed, I'll be happy.

The plans look not bad at all. I do dread the travel disruption the works would cause though.

Badgeman said...

I'm suspicious of the vagueness concerning the 'landmark building'. Is that developer speak for a high rise block? I seem to recall one was spoken about in the past.

Anonymous said...

They'll have to be a landmark building, to pay for it all.

Tamsin said...

At one time there were threats of a 7-storey block at the foot of Jerningham Road - designed to be extended by a further 5 stories if the need arose. I hope this is not what is meant.

The problem, as so often with any size of developer, is that Sainsbury's have paid far too much for the land and need to squash a lot in not to make a thundering great loss.

Nick Marsh said...

I love it! The area outside Sainsbury's is one of the worst areas in one of the worst areas in London. Living just across the road from it (Jerningham), and often visiting Siansburys on foot, I can't say how excited I am about this.

Think how different the experience will be for people visiting New Cross Gate for the first time. It gets my wholehearted support as a bunch of wiggly line sketches - of course, I reserve the right to become cynical if they start talking about a 30 story tower with a range of cladding materials once those wiggly lines start to firm up.

Headhunter said...

All in all it looks very positive, excluding any potential plans for a 15 storey building. That barren wilderness of tarmac always seemed such a waste of space. It's currently not connected to the station or roads in the Hatcham conservation area.

Not sure about Sainsbury's having paid too much for the land - that Sainsbury's has been there longer than I've been in London (since 1999) so Sainsbury's must've paid depressed 90s prices for the land I assume. And they don't seemed to have been bothered about squashing anything on the land until now.

Tamsin said...

BTW who, south of the A2 has received this flyer? We have found the NDC in general rather uncommunicative about the plans which will make the station more inconvenient for those on the south side - and particularly the students at Goldsmiths. Presumably the student accommodation at 9 is a sop for this.

lb said...

BK, think you hit the nail on the head: "sustainability hub" is almost certainly recycling bins.

Looks a bit like a fairly standard commercial residential development to me: I mistrust both the extremely vague promise of "possibly a nursery or community facility" (whatever one of those is) and the fluffy, faux-naif font they've used throughout the leaflet.

Tamsin said...

No - the land at the front, Currys, the petrol station etc. was not owned by Sainsbury's from the outset. Acquired from whatever the residue of BR held it only about five or six years ago at top whack.

I totally agree about the lost opportunity to have the store at the front at the car park at the rear - we told them again and again at the time...

Can't quite see the detail, but worrying potential effect on traffic over Telgraph Hill and past the schools if Jerningham Road is effectively opened up as a cross-roads - with potentially buses going up as well as down. (Which is what the bus company wants - having a different route coming and going is rather too complicated for them, however convenient it is for the users.)

Richard Elliot said...

Looks pretty promising from the leaflet. I like the idea of integrating the train station and bus links more effectively.

@ Kate - yes, probably just fancy speak for recycling bins! From the untrained eye the car park might be a bit smaller and the "high street" will probably make Sainsbury's feel closer, but agree it isn't moving anywhere.

Is the petrol station being removed? We are not actually over-run with places to fill our cars in Brockley. It would be a loss, but not a massive one.

Anonymous said...

A lot of people like to see the car park in front of the store - it gives them a good idea that they might be able to actually fit their car in. Consider that viewpoint for a moment too.

What every community centre needs, of course, is a fully all-inclusive, ethno-centric, accessible and carbon neutral sustainability hub. As long as it's free range.

Badgeman said...

It's not clear how the traffic will be routed around the site; the plan shows a entrance approximately wher the junction is now, but the fron cover pic shows the new 'High St' as a cul-de-sac.

lb said...

Perhaps 'High Street' is a reference to the weed-smoking beggar?

The Cat Man said...

I love the widget thingy nick has used.

I worry about the perception of driving up the new street and staring at the sainsburies superstore as if it was some sort of magestical castle.

Its one thing sainsburies being a supporter of regeneration, but its another to be a capitalist 'god-like' icon.

The Cat Man said...

maybe they will even re-name the new street after david beckham?

Headhunter said...

Have you been smoking weed Cat Man? Sainsbury's as a god like icon? How bizarre!

Brockley Kate said...

Tamsin - could you elaborate? I'm not clear on how the design would make station access less convenient for the 'southsiders'.

Anonymous said...

Brockley Central should send out a delegation to the open days and report back.

creepylesbo said...

Oh oh! But how will I do my shopping if they close it for renovations and moving? I can't drive and it's already a massive 'day out' to have to trudge down to Sainsburys and then lug it all back up the hill!
Plus, aren't they already messing with the heavens by planning to change the whole of New Cross Gate by 'moving' the old Tram stop and 'historic lamp post' somewhere else (does anyone else think it's no longer 'historic' if you move it?). I don't really want to live in a massive building site for the next 5 years - it's bad enough that I don't even have a tube line to the nearest mainstream cinema any more. :-(

Danja said...

A quick search shows Sainsbury's purchased the freehold to the whole estate from British Land for £44m in 2007. Prior to that they just had a lease on the store etc (but that could have been the result of a sale and leaseback).

Subsequently, they set up a JV with British Land and shoved 39 stores with big development value into that, so it may have gone into that JV (which would make sense, this is hardly their core business, but they may have some other partner).

Danja said...

Anything that develops that site would be great - some people's glasses are always 7/8s empty.

It would be a nice spot for a landmark tower.

Brockley Nick said...

Ho hum. They might put a tall(ish) building in there somewhere, so what? Tamsin, you're concerned about buildings of seven storeys? That's only 2-3 higher than the average Telegraph Hill townhouse.

The issue isn't height, it's design quality. Reflexive criticism of anything with a bit of height is not clever.

Anonymous said...

Given what the type of high rise building that has typically been plonked in the south east has meant that reflexive criticism whilst not necessarily clever has proven to be apt.

Anonymous said...

Having said all that, Sainsbury's did a decent job with their site at Forest Hill.

Brockley Nick said...

The south end of Greenwich peninsula has lots of "tall" buildings (at least 7 stories). They are among the best new houses built in London in the last ten years. Citi tower in Lewisham is awful, as is the low-rise police station next to it.

Anonymous said...

The one in Sydenham is very nice

Anonymous said...

I've never really understood why the Telegraph Hill Society makes a fuss about buses going up and down Jerningham Road. It's one of the widest roads in the area, and the 'vibrations might shake my sash windows argument' is rather dubious - or at least no more applies to houses there than any other street in London.

drakefell debaser said...

The plans look good, a much better use of the space than what is there currently. Whilst Sainsburys is not moving I think it’s logical it stays where it is due to the headache of moving it in the first place and, why have a behemoth of a supermarket at street level anyway, it’s only a 2 minute walk away and supermarkets are ugly. I also think tall buildings will look good there – on the opposite side of the station there are 6 or more storey council blocks so it’s not a new thing although the view of Goldsmiths spaghetti sculpture will be gone from Sainsburys car park. Probably not the end of the world though, unless you are the beggar, and the tall buildings might just block out the view of the incinerator which is handy – unless of course you buy a flat in the new tower.

Tamsin said...

The vibrations shake the whole house, even the back half. You feel buses going by even when you can't hear them.

The station entrance is now pointing towards the NDC area - their gain other people's loss. But the fact is that it is further for those crossing the A2 from the south and particularly from the south east, i.e. Goldsmiths side, and the east - Pagnell Street. Not so much the issue of it happening - all change is swings and roundabouts - but that the NDC signally fail to consult those outside their specific geographic limits who will nevertheless be adversely affected.

The gripe about a seven or eleven storey building on the road-front is on a general principle, that it is so high above the exisitng building line, and also personal - the view over the city as you walk down Jerningham Road is a pleasant part of the commute (about the only pleasant part).

nobbly brick said...

Nick, of course you're right about design quality and tall buildings but you can rest assured that if there are tall buildings here there will be no design quality.

I wish we were witnessing the last dying thrashes of speculative property development, and perhaps we are. If the Sainsburys and its environs were a disaster last time I can see no reason why they won't be a similarly, although tempered, disaster this time.

Nick, you're also correct about the buildings near the dome in Greenwich - but their success relies largely on the thoughtful integration into the landscape, not particularly on the design quality (which in some respects is quite unpleasant). Don't now what it's like to live in 'em though...

Finally, regarding the 'Citi tower in Lewisham', I regard this as a brutalist masterpiece and should serve as a warning to the corporate philistinistic vision that permeates the Council. Perhaps the next local elections will put paid to the purveyors of this nonsense.

Danja said...

What, 50 meters further or so? 100 at most - and that's only if you weren't going to walk down the platform anyway.

I agree about the bus vibrations, they really do sway our house - all the more reason to run them up and down Jerningham!

Tamsin said...

Thanks NB - exactly how I feel about tall buildings.

You need a sensible grouping for them to look good (like Didcot Power Station). Canary Wharf was a total eyesore until it acquired friends its own height and therefore some context. There is not adequate acreage here.

Brockley Nick said...

Tamsin, you made that point about clusters before. Then people cited Big Ben and the Eiffel Tower and asked whether they were OK on your own. I don't remember a very convincing answer from you ;)

Tamsin said...

100 metres is quite a lot when you are late for a train - particularly if you are going out of London and have to cross the railway and re-cross rather than just now going straight down to the relevant platform. But there are issues of capacity and disable access with the current set up, I acknowledge. The main bug-bear is the lack of consultation outside the NDC area.

In that context can I repeate my earlier question - where has the leaflet been delivered?

At least buses going up Pepys and down Jerningham spreads the load - but maybe they should go both ways on Pepys!

Headhunter said...

I agree with Tamsin. Tall buildings look good grouped together and at best like a set of gappy teeth if stuck up individually. The view from Jerningham as you walk down the hill is pleasant, with a dirty great tower stuck at the bottom of the hill, it wouldn't be improved.

And I agree with Nobbly, I think it's highly doubtful that a building in that spot would be of any design merit, economy is the name of the game at the moment with the property market on its knees, the developer of the site is highly unlikely to bring in a major architect to design something.

Paris has grouped together tall buildings at La Defense and London has done well with Canary Wharf. I don't see why we have a need for odd high rise buildings in residential areas across London.

An American friend of mine came over here a couple of years ago and one of her 1st comments was how wonderful it is to be able to walk round the city and see the sky as well as benefit from natural light rather than constantly live in a chasm between enormous skyscrapers.

Tamsin said...

Big Ben has the Victoria Tower at the other end of the building and the Eiffel Tower is significantly beautiful in its own right (or hideous by the judgment of people at the time). Square blocks need company - as in the present docklands or the business sector of Paris (as seen from the Eiffel Tower). But that is a personal opinition - de gustibus etc.

Danja said...

I had a leaflet through the door last weekend.

nobbly brick said...

I'm not sure if clustering of tall buildings does improve things. I didn't have particularly strong feelings about Canada Tower before it was surrounded by other buildings but now it is surrounded it all just looks like a huge developer deity has had an almighty dump on the isle of dogs - the view from the vantage point in Greenwich park is now changed beyond recognition, and not for the better.

One of the excuses the developers gave for erecting tall buildings in the Lewisham Gateway was that it would 'improve' the look of the Citibank. It's nonsense of course.

Brockley Nick said...

So headhunter, you like your tall buildings to be grouped together in clusters (London has lots of those by the way, not just canary wharf) but you also prefer not to have canyons formed by tall buildings... in clusters. In any case, trying to compare New Cross Gate with a CBD of a large american city is ridiculous.

I like vertical emphasis in cities - I believe that the mountainscapes of Canary Wharf and the City add a new and visually interesting to our urban views. I think tall buildings that climb above the homogeneity of most rooflines replicate what the church spires did for the landscapes painted by cannelletto. I believe aesthetically, a well-designed tower is infinitely preferable to a poorly designed groundscraper, that eat up huge tracts of land and destroy our streets as places for people. But this is largely subjective of course, same as your dislike of the vertical form.

What is objective is that tall buildings are often a highly efficient use of land and their inclusion in masterplans can often create room or money for other things, such as public spaces.

Headhunter said...

I quite like the view of the Docklands from Greenwich Park, but then I didn't see it before the buildings were there. I'm also actually not completely opposed to tall-ish buildings in the Lewisham Gateway, it's broadly a commercial area and has a "larger" feel to it, whereas a tall building at the bottom of the hill in New Cross would probably make the area feel cramped and overshadowed. However I know that some people in the Brockley cons area have strong opinions about tall buildings in Lewisham interrupting their views.

nobbly brick said...

"I think tall buildings that climb above the homogeneity of most rooflines replicate what the church spires did for the landscapes painted by cannelletto"


do they allow you to take drugs where you work Nick?

;)

Choosenick said...

Er, guys, we don't know if there's going to be a tall building. Lets all go to Sainsbury's on the 24th and ask the developers!

Brockley Nick said...

A very good point!

Headhunter said...

Nick - I do like tall buildings in clusters like Canary Wharf, but I don't want that replicated across the city and especially not in residential areas casting shadows across people's homes, high streets etc, completely out of keeping with the existing scale of things.

A single, ecnomically built, eyesore 15 storey building is likely to cause more of an impact on NC than a single, economically built eyesore low level building. At least the latter is not visible from many miles around.

Church and cathedral spires did not climb 15 storeys (or more) into the air, and were generally slim, dainty structures rather than dirty great slabs of concrete and glass. They were generally also only little higher than surrounding buidings. IMO the 2 cannot be compared.

Aesthetically and well designed, tall buildings look good. I like the gherkin, however often they are just ugly slabs put up at lowest possible cost.

They do appeal to the green enthusiast in me though, I agree that they represent an efficient use of land.

I don't think a tall building in that spot would be in keeping with the area and I'm sure that in a couple of decades we would be looking on it, as we do the Ciitibank bldg in Lewisham and think, what on earth were we up to back then...

drakefell debaser said...

Hang on; there is a big difference between a 6 to 7 storey block and Canary Wharf or La Defence which are 30 to 50 or more floors. New Cross is in no danger of becoming Manhattan. If you look at the new developments down by the Montague Arms they are 6 storeys high yet not imposing at all. And most developments are of this height as is the majority of London already.

Anonymous said...

The buildings in La Defense in Paris are a darn site more stylish and architecturally adventurous than the lego bricks they have put up in Canary Wharf. The could at least have put a few more pyramids on the top of the other merchant banker buildings.

London has had a long running affair with the standard rectangular office block for decades.

Lewisham council is also not known for either its ability to positively influence developers nor its taste in architecture.

I predict a standard slab of concrete and glass.

Headhunter said...

DD - I'm not really talking about a building on 5, 6 or even perhaps 7 floors, I'd be more concerned about something taller than that

The Cat Man said...

Everything should be judged in the context of where it is. I.e. A tall building can be rather pleasent if the adjacent buildings are slightly lower, and decreasing away from the pinnacle towards street level.

This is exactly what they have done with Mantle rd by the way, the site with the green boarding blown over decreases in steps away from the battleship grey tower block to the rather pleasent victorian house the other side.

Maybe the key thing we should be discussing is what are the buildings like around the proposed tower in the development??? any ideas?

Context = Key.

lb said...

No cathedral tower was ever a dirty great slab of concrete and glass, eh?

Still a fine building, mind you.

Note that they only said a 'landmark building', anyway. I'm still lobbying for something like the Kunsthaus Graz.

Headhunter said...

I like the Metropolitan Cathedral in Liverpool and wouldn't describe it as a slab. It hardly has the girth of one of those indentikit glass rectangles put up with little imagination.

Yes, I think I'll pass on the Kunsthaus Graz. Completely crazy and likeable in a way, but if I lived in one of the buildings in that square it occupies I would have laid in front of the bulldozers or chained myself to railings or something...

Monkeyboy said...

Why is the woman laughing at the fat bloke holding a large fish?

Tamsin said...

Because otherwise she would be crying.

nobbly brick said...

We *could* have had an 'iconic' building in Lewisham - the so-called debenhams 'peanut'.

One of the rumours why that didn't happen is that the Council didn't want the owners of the Lewisham Centre (Land Securities) to increase their ownership of land in that vicinity.

Anonymous said...

I think New Cross road is dreadful and miserable and try to avoid walking down it at all costs! The station is pretty awful too. Telegraph hill park is fantastic but a well hidden asset from the main road so I hope this plan goes some way to improving the amenities for those in New X. The only thing that I am sad about is the loss of the petrol station which, apart from the Sainsburys petrol station in greenwich penninsula, gives better priced petrol than almost anywhere in s London. Actually Esso in brockley is not too bad..... but hey a small price to pay

Paul Linford said...

I like it. I very nearly lived in New Cross Gate once and I often think if I ever moved back to London it would be to there.

Alice and The Cat said...

Woah, Paul Linford? Who are you? and how did you find Brockley Central? Having looked at your Blogger ID it's not obvious why you are interested in Brockley. I'm very curious.... does this mean that Brockley truly is the centre of the universe? Curious, indeed..

Anonymous said...

Of all the areas of London you could choose, you would prefer to live in New Cross Gate?

Perhaps it has some charms that escape the casual observer. What is it? Lorry spotting on the A2, the trains, the tubes? The BUS garage maybe?

BrockleyBiker said...

New Cross Gate station is going to have to be replaced. The stairs down to the London bridge platform can't cope now when its busy, and it's only going to get worse as the numbers increase.

Tamsin said...

Actually if you can look above the tatty shop-fronts and avoid the litter blowing around your ankles the New Cross Road is a fantastic mix architecturally - my husband only last week gave an illustrated talk on it. From the ex-Carnegie library, now the Music Centre, right the way up to the Marquis of Granby. There's the clutch clinic (ex-stables for the White Hart and looking unchanged from prints from the early 1800s, once a Kinema) to the Deptford Town hall (what I really call an iconic building), via Fairlawn Mansions, the thirties housing next to them and the terrace opposite where Barnes Wallis used to live.
The New Cross Gate station itself, I agree, has become too small for its traffic, but it is a lovely example of station architecture at the time and I am glad to see that the building is still marked on the present map. (Earlier versions of the plans were demolishing it.)
I agree about it being a pity if the petrol station has to go. They are getting rarer and rarer now - with longer and longer queues at the ones that remain.

Brockley Kate said...

Alice - Paul is a blogging 'acquaintance' of mine from the days in which I attempted to write a vaguely newsy journo-blog.

He also likes hiking in the Lake District and is therefore clearly an all-round good egg ;-)

patrick1971 said...

Looks interesting, would like to see more of the plans.

I think Tamsin has a point about moving the station entrance to the side. This was a disaster at New Cross; you now come out onto a dark side street rather than a well-lit main road. As long as the Sainsbury's plan works in full, that won't happen at NXG...but we'll see. Another NX station error they should avoid is putting in a subway. The one at NX regularly floods and makes it impossible to catch London-bound trains.

The plans seem to be cramming a lot in to a fairly small area. Although I think it's great that Sainsbury's is trying to do something more imaginative than just leasing out the current buildings again. They've never managed to keep tenants. Started off with the whole thing as a bingo hall, then Currys, JD Sports, Topps Tiles and I'm sure there've been others over the years.

Brockley Kate said...

I can't see where on that leaflet it says that they're looking at moving the station entrance; can anyone clarify?

To me it looks as though the potential 'new' station would be in the same position as the current one, but with a 'landmark building' on top of it.

patrick1971 said...

Kate, it's a bit unclear, but if you look at the "1" on the diagram, it says "Landmark building and possible new station", which suggests to me (and presumably to Tamsin!) that they're going to put the station entrance there, and then lease the existing building out for other use.

Brockley Kate said...

Patrick - yes, I'd seen that, but to me the 'landmark building and station' appears to be in the spot where the current station is. Which suggests to me that the idea is to land-grab the current station, to build a big office block over it. Not to move the station entrance.

patrick1971 said...

The current station is the black rectangle just above "1" in the diagram.

Brockley Kate said...

Oh yes, just above the 'landmark building'. Still can't see any indication of the station entrance though; and given that the 'enhanced bus provision' (aka 'a layby' ??!) is outside the station on the main road side, it would suggest that the station entrance will still face in that direction - doesn't it?
Ie. it will have moved approx. 20 feet to the west of its current position.

patrick1971 said...

Looking at it again, you're right, it could be either.

Tamsin said...

That's interesting. I was possibly influenced by earlier plans where the station entrance was definitely from the side as one of the things they were deliberately moving away from was debouching onto the road. Maybe they have listened to Goldsmiths ...
Roll on Friday week when we can find out!

fabhat said...

Tamsin,
I love the use of the word debouching...I have learnt a new word today.

Tamsin said...

Slightly more elegant than vomiting!

monkeyboy said...

Could be something they are looking at. I know TfL, and I expect NR, have cottoned onto the fact that they own 'footprint' in some prime areas. Lots of rebuilt stations include space on top that they can lease/sell. Not a bad idea if done well. Look at the plans for Blackfriars LU station.

Tyrwhitt Michael said...

Help! I can't see the proposals on my computer at work. Are the drawings available elsewhere or does any one have a pdf of the proposals?

Thanks

Richard Elliot said...

Re: the discussion on the station entrance. One possible thought that occurred to me was:
- The building labled 1 on the plan becomes the new station entrance.
- The new bridge to the platforms (also on the plans) becomes the primary access to the station.
- The existing station is closed and re-used for another purpose.

If I was a sneaky developer, this would be an effective way to get more footfall into my new development.

I would expect that Network Rail and not Sainsbury's own the existing station, so there would need to be quite a bit of agreement to do this.

Purely speculation on my part.....

Anonymous said...

I have lived in this area long enough to remember the renovation of New X station.

The underpass was a sad underachievement by the engineers.

Within a few months water damage was evident and has continued to get worse for years.

It will be interesting to see what sort of short cuts are made with New Cross Gate.

Presumably they don't get enough budget to do these things properly.

Headhunter said...

I agree re NC stn. That nasty little, damp subway to the London Br platform needs removing and that horrible, dark little side passage exit you have to shuffle down, often behind some p*ssed up yob, when you get of the train there after the main station is shut is awful. they should find a better solution for exitting the station

Anonymous said...

Backing up a bit, I'm curious with Nobbly Brick's post about the Debenham's peanut building. What's the story there? I've long heard of the mythical plans of Debenham's to open a Lewisham branch but there never seemed to be weight to it.

max said...

About the Debenham plans there's a good report on the story from one point of view inside this objection to the Gateway development.

http://www.lewishamgateway.org/Ray_Hall_objection.pdf

I found this objection to be compelling reading, it's written in narrative style and covers a good stretch of Lewisham's recent history.

nobbly brick said...

Ray Hall is a compelling and passionate advocate for what Central Lewisham should be.

Tamsin said...

Looking again at the leaflet - and I think I will put up some copies of the first page as posters since the delivery seems to have been rather sporadic over the hill (well we haven't got one!) - it would be good if people could check out what will be happening with the pedestrian crossings over the A2. This totally does away with the rather counter-intuitive current exit from Sainsbury's for cars where those turning right into London go up the left hand side of the petrol station and those going West start off by heading the other way, but this (after much thought and to-ing and fro-ing) was the only scheme which allowed pedestrians to cross to and from the station in one go rather than having to be crowded on a rather small island in the middle of the road.
It is a point that needs thinking of given the hoards of people already using the station and the increased numbers anticipated with the ELL. Before the crossing was modified Joan Ruddock's (ex-)husband was actually killed there.

Anonymous said...

that report on the debenhams saga is pretty damning.
oh for what could have been...

Tamsin said...

Isn't it just - and the pain and frustration in every paragraph

"...and hear the truth you've spoken/Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools/And see the things you gave your life to broken/And stoop to build them up with worn out tools"

but he sounded almost beyond being able to re-build - let's continue to hope that others can otherwise the only option is to move out.

mintness said...

"High quality new homes - many of which will be affordable"

Gosh. The very concept! It's almost as if we haven't just bankrupted the entire country by making homes anything but "affordable"...

Anonymous said...

Im not sure that mentioning Joan Ruddocks husband was really necessary, surely?

Tamsin said...

You're right. Apologies.
All that needed to be said that there was a fatal accident and without due care it is a dangerous crossing - as any potentially are next to transport nodes where people see their train or bus as being about to depart and don't take care.
The same situation will arise, we fear, with the changes to the road layout near the White Hart, where pedestsrians will be expected to take a much longer way round when crossing the A2.

Tamsin said...

Has anyone else been to Sainsburys over the last three days to see the plans (or looked that the website which is presumably up and running)?
Huge residential block - but maybe it is so far above the existing building line it actually works aesthetically. It is set back from the road which is necessary.
The station entrance and access to the platforms works and is from the front rather than round the side so my earlier posts were mistaken now one has seen the detail.
The crossing by the station is also in one hit for pedestrians.
A worry remains about how the block will impact on the view but a model and more photographs will be available in the exhibition where it is next week in the NDC and at the Telegraph Hill Centre and in the NDC next week that could not be out in the hurly burly of the store.
One worrying fact for Jerningham Road residents is that the Council is pressing for a direct crossing from the site up Jerningham Road although the developers and tfl are resisting that. If it happens we will have buses both up and down Jerningham - which will make DanJ happy but make life much worse for us. Just down is bad enough!

Anonymous said...

I live in one of the houses in Harts Lane, my major concerns so far are:- Firstly and most importantly the people who have houses surronding areas have not been informed personally. This does not bode well for the future. The Quality of housing, The height of the proposed town houses on Harts Lane and other areas and the disruption.

Although I do overall like the idea, if they do it correctly!

One other thing "The beggar" should do the grand opening!

JS

lb said...

Given as the New Cross Sainsbury doesn't seem to be able to put Oxo cubes in a logical place in the shop, but insists on hiding them over the freezers, I have little faith in their redevelopment abilities.

Monkeyboy said...

..took me ages to find where they hide their Cous Cous.

nobbly brick said...

cocktail cherries were my problem...

Monkeyboy said...

When I asked one of the staff they looked at me as though I'd dropped in from Venus.

Brockley Kate said...

Ah, well, perhaps here is the best place to ask - nobody else has ever been able to enlighten me - WHERE THE HELL ARE THE POPPYSEEDS?!?!?!??!

Ithangkew in advance.

Monkeyboy said...

The same place they hide the Gillette Mach III razor blades. I've been scraping my jaw with the same one for weeks now.

jpm said...

Tamsin - "If it happens we will have buses both up and down Jerningham."

Why will this happen? I visited the exhibition, and was hugely concerned that anyone living in Brockley/telegraph Hill may be forced to turn left out of Sainsbury's (towards New Cross Station) or right (to Peckam).

Jerningham Road is hugely useful to those living in Telegraph Hill and Brockley, and the plan - to my knowledge - is NOT to reroute buses up it. For this reason alone I oppose the application. (Many of you will already be aware of the difficulty crossing the yellow junction box on the way to Sainsbury's from brockley.)

Tamsin said...

The bus companies do not like routes that go and come a different way, that have circular bits in them, like the the 343 does at present with buses going down Jerningham and up Pepys. Once they can physically do so they will push and push (and probably wont have to push very hard to get their way).
Freeing up that junction so traffic can right into the A2 from Jerningham and right into Jerningham from the A2 will massively increase rat-running.
If people from Telegraph Hill and Brockley are driving to Sainsbury's (as I confess I almost invariably do myself) is it that big a deal to add a bit to the journey?
The exhibition has gone from the shop but it will be in the NDC centre and Telegraph Hill Centre on Wednesday and Thursday with more detail - 3d models etc. - that they could not get into the store entrance for health and safety reasons

Tamsin said...

Should register so that I can correct my posts - "TURN right".

Jerningham Road has two schools in it (and me!) and anything which will increase traffic flow up and down should be opposed.

While writing - another Hilly Telegraph due out next week and note the Telegrapah Hill/Honor Oak Ward Assembly on 23rd Feb.

Anonymous said...

How could it possibly be a negative thing when you look at the state of the area now?
Unless it is going to be developed as a secret nazi training camp I say YES!
I am slightly dubious of Sainsbury's intentions as they must be financially based, but I cannot see how the development of the area can have a negative impact on our community.

Anonymous said...

I know someone who would LOVE a Nazi training camp.

Tamsin said...

Don't get me wrong - it's not the development itself that should be opposed - as I said much earlier in this thread almost anything is better than what is there now (although it's a pity it could not be better planned at the outset so it lasted more than 20 years) - but the tower block is regrettable - it would be nicer if the finances were such that it they did not have to build so high - and any attempts by the Council and the bus companies to open up a vehicular cross route from the development to Jerningham Road (which the developer and tfl are resisting) should also be opposed by local residents.

nobbly brick said...

As with all these developer things the ideas *actually* occur in the opposite way from that which might appear obvious, and that which the developers would like you to believe.

Firstly is the rapacious desire for the developer to make money.

Secondly is the identification of available land, or land that can be made available.

Thirdly is getting the development planned and made for the lowest possible price.

Fourthly is cramming in as many people as is possible to satisfy the housing needs of central government.

Fifth is the media campaign to mollify the locals - this is all based on the premise that all the local people are idiots and will be tempted by inaccurate pictures and irrelevant shops.

Finally (well, perhaps not), is rolling over the local Council - in this case the local Council need no rolling because they are the 'idiot' target audience referred to in the last para.

joe bat said...

19 STORIES HIGH
19 STORIES HIGH
19 STORIES HIGH
19 STORIES HIGH
19 STORIES HIGH
19 STORIES HIGH
19 STORIES HIGH
19 STORIES HIGH
19 STORIES HIGH
19 STORIES HIGH
19 STORIES HIGH
19 STORIES HIGH
19 STORIES HIGH
19 STORIES HIGH
19 STORIES HIGH
19 STORIES HIGH
19 STORIES HIGH
19 STORIES HIGH
19 STORIES HIGH

We have to do something to stop this.
They are applying for planning permission in four months to build a 19 story building right next to where the garage currently sits.
The open day and questionairre they have created are misleading to the say the least, no where is it mentioned that the plan is to build 19 stories high.
I want to do something to stop this.
If you do too email me at

saynotosainsburyshighrise@hotmail.co.uk

Joe

Anonymous said...

But but... it'll be a landmark 19 stories high!

Paul, Telegraph Hill said...

I'm not particularly bothered what Sainsbury's does in its own site, as long as it does not have harmful wider effects on our community. It's not a particularly good shopping experience at the moment and could certainly do with being 24hrs.

HOWEVER:

Looking at the website, there's a heck of a lot that they haven't told us and lots that doesn't add up, eg why are they saying they will provide a new footbridge across the station but won't touch the station building because they don't own it? This seems to be building up to an excuse why we won't get any community benefits out of this.

What about the effect on the conservation areas (Hatcham and Telegraph Hill) - scale, height, massing of development?

Will the development result in a bad microclimate, especially considering the existing situation.

Will we get the quality shops they are trying to entice us with?

Can all the buses fit into that small lay-by without blocking up the vehicular access to the store?

Surely the Mayor will demand next to no parking spaces for the resi - will they all park in Hatcham and Telegraph Hill resulting in us having parking permits imposed by the Council?

Why are Goldsmiths students being specifically consulted given that they are a transitory population who won't have to live with adverse impacts if there are any (most of them will be graduated by the time this is built)? Are they an easy target to get a big body of support with the lure of new student housing?

There's no details of how the store will be improved and what the traffic effects could be.

And it will be an even longer walk to get to the store too!

Will await the planning application with interest, especially the Environmental Statement to see how they are dealing with the "impacts".

paul_b_london@yahoo.co.uk

Ram said...

it's a really nice blog thanks for add my comment..

onlinebingostore World is your complete guide to online bingo we bring together the finest online bingo games and the best online bingo websites. Here you will be able to find advice on to play bingo in our Bingo Games section.onlinebingostore .com

Anonymous said...

Does anyone know what the current status is with this project, or has it been shelved entirely?

Tamsin said...

Still trunding along, but there are matters that have to be sorted out with other agencies such as tfl and that is taking time.

Anonymous said...

Is this dead in the water or still going on?

Brockley Nick said...

These big development projects often lie dormant for a long time. There have been rumblings about Sainsbury getting cold feet. Personally, I think it's largely a matter of time. A lot of commercial office developments in central London which people thought dead in the water a year ago are now being revived. The area is currently a waste of good zone 2 land, somebody is going to want to do something with it sooner or later...

Anonymous said...

Just came across this old thread from 2009...

'Plans for New Cross Gate Unveiled'

Does anyone know if there are still plans to develop the site?

Tamsin said...

Situation probably unchanged from my posting two years ago. But you could get in touch with Joan Ruddock's office - ring Jessica - as it is something that she is keeping tabs on in her six monthly meetings.

Anonymous said...

Thanks Tamsin - I rang Jessica and although she didn't have an update she is going to make some enquiries and get back to me. I also got in contact with Design for London - they told me that due to the economic downturn the plans have been shelved for now and that when finances improve they hope to see more design conscious Architects involved in revising the original scheme.. so we wait to see
I will post an update if I hear more

Guest said...

Any news from "Jessica", or anybody else, on this......?

Brockley Central Label Cloud