Martin's Yard consultation published


A couple of weeks ago, Lewisham Council's planning committee considered the public consultation document prepared by Dialogue on behalf of MacDonald Egan, the developers of Martin's Yard in Brockley Cross.

We love this proposal, which will turn a scaffolding yard that currently occupies one acre of what is supposed to be our town centre in to a new street, which will improve connections between east and west Brockley, increase local employment opportunities and replace heavy lorries with homes. We love the beach hut aesthetic and the snaking road layout.

The feedback document contains an embarrassingly large number of quotes from Brockley Central readers and we hope the developers haven't damaged their chances by leaving the last word in the document to a comment from Catman (ne Andy Pandy).

The report to Council lists some of the concerns that have arisen during the consultation process - the most significant of which relate to loss of light for the Business Centre and residents of Drakefell Road not wishing to be overlooked (natch). None of this seems insurmountable.

We don't know what timeline the developers are currently working to, but clearly the project has been delayed by at least a year. We hope this latest development signals that it is back on track and we will try to bring you more information on the project as soon as possible.

49 comments:

Comment said...

I like this proposal, from what I've seen and skimmed. I think its best selling point is that it doesn't have a tower block included.

M said...

That looks great. Really hope it goes ahead - it could be a real, positive change for Brockley.
I might even be in the market for one of the commercial units by the time they're built!

The Cat Man said...

Oh - i'm famous! Shouldn't they have contacted me before they included my comment?

It is a smart proposal and i'm more than happy to give it my support. I hope there is some s106 funding to improve the road immedatiely outside the site, such as more flowerbeds (endwell road?)

patrick1971 said...

It does look really good. But quite scary that there's so much discussion of cars and car parking in the document, with no mention of the fact that it's virtually on top of a railway station! No one living there could seriously need a car. As I've said before, why don't they just make these developments ineligible for parking permits? Then you immediately get around the complaints about extra traffic.

The Cat Man said...

These are 'live/work' units, not 'residential' units. Therefore there is a need for car parking outside the ground floor office units.

fabhat said...

Patrick1971 - if it's going to have commercial premises there will be need for some short stay parking at least, for deliveries and probably visitors too.
I think it looks like a great development and I am certainly very interested in finding out more about renting one of the commercial spaces.

The Cat Man said...

There is also the 'knock-on' effect of encouraging developments like these - an increase in the 'daytime' use of Brockley and not just as residential commuter hub. Local shops should benefit.

The 'creative' focus of the development with new creative industires occuping the work spaces may well prove the saving grace of the tea factory gallery space, if as known to be the case in two years, a commercial sponsor would be required to take over the running of it. By then we should have a number of local profit making creative businesses as a result of this.

Anonymous said...

If you work there but don't live by a station connected to Brockley it's perfectly possible you might need a car.

Tressillian James said...

Using anonymous quotes to back your proposal - even if they do come from BC - seems somewhat dubious. As we know this blog attracts readers and comments from those outside of Brockley (and I'm glad of that).I'm afraid if I was on a Planning Committee, I'd not take them into consideration.

Anonymous said...

They are not part of the planning process (blog comments) so they will not be taken into consideration.

However, they might be used to obfuscate some other, less palletable, part of the proposal.

Headhunter said...

Am I bein fick? I can't see any document with quotes from Brockley Central.... What am I supposed to be looking at?

Pete said...

It's true that they probably won't take the blog comments into account too much but as my planning consultation leading wife is always telling me letters in support of an application carry just as much weight as those opposing an application.

This is only true if the letters come from people living in the local area though. So if you Brockley dwellers support this and want it to get through you'll have to write in support.

bleedin' obvious said...

first link in the first sentence Headhunter old boy

Anonymous said...

"Using anonymous quotes to back your proposal - even if they do come from BC - seems somewhat dubious."
Where of course using quotes from a man who calls himself Andy Pandy Pudding and Pie lends a real heavyweight degree of credibility.

Headhunter said...

Thanks "bleedin' obvious". Missed that. Andy's comment is a masterpiece of politik speak, reads like a press release and says..... Nothing!

“I think this is a very smart idea. It plays on the strengths of the
Brockley area and enhances the creative environment that already
exists”.

more nonsense said...

I think you could read the whole proposal with that in mind as well.

Brockley Nick said...

Given the low regard you all have for your own opinions, it's a wonder you even bother posting.

Anon, I suppose it's too much to ask for a reasoned argument when you dismiss the whole proposal, particularly that the developers will have a lot of money riding on it being a success. I'm sure they'd welcome your critical appraisal.

All, the quotes were used as a bit of dressing for the report produced by the pr company that ran the consultancy. In that respect, it's like the renderings - not strictly necessary, but a useful illustration of something.

As much as anything, it is their way of showing that they tried to communicate their plans to a wider local audience by giving an interview. That's laudable, particularly given the development's size and central location.

cannot think of a witty name sorry said...

I need to go though it in greater detail but, having spent a little time on it, it certainly looks very interesting.

The developers are clearly trying to engage with the community and are taking a responsible approach to planning their "street" - ie not "we can make some quick money our of residential housing" but instead " we can make money - which is fine - AND the area as a whole will improve if we build on its current strengths and maintain the community".

They are basically looking much longer term than the average developer - dare I say this?! - and I hope the Council recognises this more mature and constructive gives them credit for it.

They come across as the sort of people we should be encouraging to get involved in the area.

anon said...

Please, when addressing an anonymous contribution have the courtesy of including a date and time.

small point said...

The developers aren't trying to engage with the local community but they have employed someone to make it look like they're trying to engage with the local community - Dialogue - "leading specialist in managing consultation programmes around major developments"

a PR company by any other name


That's just a comment by the way, not a criticism.

Brockley Nick said...

I work in pr. Brockley Central is pr. Good pr is all about engaging with people . Can you explain how you differentiate between appearing to engage and engaging? And in this case, on what basis you've decided they have merely appeared to engage?

Comment said...

Nick for clarity are you involved with this bid or the company in anyway shape or form?

Brockley Nick said...

@comment. No, absolutely not. I would of course mention any professional links I have with anything I wrote about, as I did when I mentioned my company's work for Stella Artois, when I wrote about the pub awards a while back

Comment said...

Ok Nick thank you.

Anonymous said...

Developers, as part of the planning process, know full well that local support and informing local residents is important. The level at which this happens is a well-trodden path.

However, they only have to *try* to do this, indeed they might *try* very hard and they might receive a very good response - depending on the experience of the agent(s) who manages this. They might also receive a bad or mixed response - this won't help in the Planning process, but neither may it hinder it - depending on the size, complexity and importance of the project.

But they *have* to engage with the Planning department - they don't simple have to *try* to do this, they actually have to do it.

That's the difference.

drakefell debaser said...

I will overlook this development once completed and I think it will be a huge improvement to the area.

I seem to remember hearing or reading somewhere that one of the architects involved lives on Drakefell Rd.

Either way it is an improvement so lets try and see it that way.

Headhunter said...

Good to hear that you're not concerned about being "overlooked", DD!

Anonymous said...

Isn't that why there talking about more parking space ? So people can park there,then use the railway station

Anonymous said...

I think this development has real potential and is an interesting design. I think it is important to consider cars/parking provision carefully though. I live on Endwell Rd and it is hard enough to find somewhere to park at times as it is! Ok we live v close to the station and I use it and the buses a lot but with a small child a car is also essential. If there is no adequate provision made then people will still have cars they will just park them in the surrounding streets which will make it more difficult for the residents of those streets to park. On the whole parking and using the station issue, personally I don't think this is a major problem - our road is busiest for parking in the evening when people return from work not during the day

lll said...

Let's be clear here. It is NOT essential to have car, it is convenient. You would manage if you didn't have a car even with a child. There's 4 billion of us humans on this planet and a car is not a prerequisite for life.

patrick1971 said...

Hear hear. I always wonder if people who think a car is "essential" think that human civilisation began in 1896. :-)

Sick and tired said...

Was that last exchange really adding anything to the discussion on the Martin's Yard consultation? I'm getting a little tired of the way in which useful, informative threads quickly get sullied with cheap digs, personal attacks and feeble attempts at humour (genuine humour I'm all for; lame humour is just a waste of everyone's time) on this blog. Do we like the new plans? Yes, but what kind of idiot dared to write that a car is essential? Do we want a new playground? Yes, but let's move the discussion quickly and totally inappropriately onto dogging. Do we like Degustation? Yes, but let's slag off the person who doesn't.
Now, can we get back to the discussion in hand? If not, regular 'clever clever' posters who use the blog as a chance to display their supposed linguistic dexterity and write spiteful and pointless comments about other bloggers will totally alienate new people who might otherwise want to use this site.

M said...

Well said!

Anonymous said...

Just so I am clear can you give us an example of feeble humour versus genuine humour because i wouldn't want to waste anyone's time, you know what I mean.?

Sick and tired said...

Yes, of course. Yours is feeble. Brockley Nick's is genuinely witty, in keeping with the friendly intentions of the blog and relevant to the subject matter he is discussing.

Feeble humour said...

Wow a creep AND a moaner.

Sick and tired said...

You asked.

Headhunter said...

I think the last points were valid. A car is certainly not essential for a partnered (or single) male like myself living in London without any kind of disability.

If you have a child, I can see the need for a car, not sure if one is essential. I suppose the difference between now and pre 1896 is that towns and cities have evolved around motor transport. In the 1800s, people would shop at a small parade of shops round the corner from where they lived and walk back, or they would get the butcher, grocer etc to deliver to them.

These days parades of shops like the one on UBR have been converted into flats so we all travel to massive supermarkets and retail centres for our needs. If you have a child, I guess it's not an option to leave it at home whilst you nip off to Tesco and back for the shopping without it, and trying to get child + several bags of shopping back on a busy bus is tough I suppose, although not impossible. Same I suppose goes for getting kids to schools and nurseries and then on to work, there's not always one of either around every corner, so transport by car makes life a lot easier, but again, without a car this is manageable.

Another contrast between modern life and life in the 1800s is that both parents would have been unlikely to work, meaning that mother (most likely) would have had more time for daily chores rather than having to cram everything in after an 8 hour workday or whatever.

In conclusion, I agree that most traffic in London is comlpetely unnecessary, there are thousands of journeys of 2 miles and below made, which could easily be made on public transport, on foot or by bike, however I can understand that motor transport is more necessary than it may have been in the past, however I would not go as far as agreeing that it is essential to have a car.

Back to this development, I have sympathy for those on surrounding streets and the impact this will have on their parking. Part of my reason for opposing the nursery on Manor Ave was traffic and I was disappointed that the council allowed the residential development (which has yet to appear) on Geoffrey Rd with very few parking spots because of its potential impact on Manor Ave. I don't really believe that not providing parking will discourage people from driving or owning cars in Brockley where there is no restriction whatsoever on street parking. People will simply dump their vehicles in front of someone else's house.

Anonymous said...

I agree with you Sick and Tired but I think you're failing to recognise the nature of bloggers. Every blog is the same, full of language Nazi's. These are the same people who become book snobs at parties. On the plus side they tend to be the ones who are not able to defend themselves very easily from sudden violent attacks.

Sick and tired no more said...

Headhunter, that's the kind of considered response I enjoy reading!

Comment said...

It's hard to tell who's the 'blog nazi' who's the 'civilian'.

Anonymous said...

which is why I say "lets do the whole F**ing village man. Frag the lot of em"!

Colonel Samuel Trautman said...

No John, don't do it!

Tressilliana said...

I think it's valid to talk about excessive car use when it's a factor in how to design a new development like this.

Just to sicken everyone even more, we sold our car when our daughter was a baby and haven't had one since. Life with two young children and no car was fine for us, but I'm quite happy to concede that we are a very odd family, and it was clear that many people we met thought that at the time. Mentioning that we didn't have a car got the same kind of response as I'd said we kept zebras in the back garden.

Food shopping: internet delivery is useful, topped up with buying stuff locally in amounts I can carry back on foot or on the bus.

Schools: most primary schoolchildren go to a school in walking distance. Most secondary pupils are perfectly capable of managing short bus or train journeys unaccompanied.

Cross-threading, Streetcar has to be a good idea for lots of people like us who can manage perfectly well most of the time without a car. We won't all need one at the same time and this way there's one car littering up the street instead of ten or twenty.

TM said...

Once again this argument about cars is been addressed the wrong way round.

The car is not the problem it's the 4 billion human beings.

There are too many of us for this planet.

Tressilliana said...

Couldn't agree more, TM! But given that there are 4 billion of us we could all try to consume a bit less. That would be a start.

sunday driver said...

Cross-threading again - Streetcar is a great idea, and I'm sure it would suit a lot of people in Brockley who currently have a car and are looking at ways to trim their expenditure.

I urge people to consider it and to lobby Lewisham council as suggested in the Streetcar thread.

Headhunter said...

Exactly Tressilliana, at the moment there are 4 billion human beings on earth and a fraction of those in developed western nations consume the vast majority of resources. Once countries like China and India are fully up to speed demanding cars, TVs, air conditioning and fridges, heaven help us....

spincat said...

I really like the design - maybe it will be built when I get back to Brockley

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!