La Lanterna: The balcony scene


This is the work-in-progress on La Lanterna (the Brockley Road restaurant undergoing significant redevelopment).

Its Greco-Roman stylings have already got some readers quite exercised but although it’s not necessarily how we would choose to design our own shop front, it seems churlish to criticise when, for the first time in a long time, someone has shown a bit of ambition for this forlorn stretch of Brockley Road. We particularly admire the chutzpah of creating a balcony that overlooks the Brockley Barge.

With a bit of a paint job and the removal of the tatty flag and sign this could yet be a much needed patch of jollity in this dark, lonely world.

105 comments:

Anonymous said...

when do they open?

Brockley Nick said...

Within a few weeks, apparently.

MrJon said...

Ambition is what is required, and from the looks of things, that is what they have. Classical facades never did Buck house or the White House any harm, so why not... just build it big. Palladian bling innit.

Headhunter said...

God Nick, can't you condemn something as a pile of sh!t for once? I reserve judgement on this, I'm not sure how it would have got approval through conservation area guidelines... Let me guess, it didn't...?

Seems ironic that we made such a fuss on here about the Speedicars sign and that some have demanded the removal of metal shutters and neon signs, yet we seem less concerned about some enormous wooden neo Palladian frontice going up on a Victorian shop front!

Brockley Nick said...

So you reserve judgement but want me to condemn it as a pile of crap?

(please mind your language)

Anonymous said...

Kitsch.

westsider said...

headhunter, I'll betcha the conservation area guidelines don't say anything about palladian stylings. The materials are within the guidelines (wood).

Anonymous said...

HH, you're becomming increasingly annoying. What exactly do you exepect to see? A plain sheet of glass? It looks a little eccentric but it's hardly an eysore. Is the only appropriate style 'victorian' complete with cholera infected scamp sat outside.

Anonymous said...

.....a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, and no one has as little knowledge as you.

Anonymous said...

.....a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, and no one has as little knowledge as you.

TheOracle said...

4) To ensure that the local planning authority may be satisfied as to the external appearance of the building and to comply with Policy URB 3 Urban Design in the adopted Unitary Development Plan (July 2004).

6) Apart from the balcony areas identified on drawing no. 1353/08/C, the flat roof of the ground floor restaurant shall not be used as a balcony, roof garden or similar amenity area, without the prior written permission of the local planning authority.

drakefell debaser said...

Nevermind the outside, the food was not great in its previous guise so I hope they are planning to pull off something equally bold in the kitchen.

Anonymous said...

...unless that balcony is occupied by a 3ft, fat, plastic, italian chef.

Anonymous said...

I'm not sure Headhunter is in keeping with the area - can I have him torn down?

Or placed into some sort of Brockley Society dungeon.

drakefell debaser said...

Nirvana has a lot to answer for. That should be never mind rather than Nevermind...

With that frontage perhaps a blow up Julius Caesar would be more appropriate but yes, hopefully the balcony will have nothing more than hanging Lobelia.

Tommo said...

The main question is will the food be any good? If it is, who cares if it looks like a pile of sh!t?

Anonymous said...

BrocSoc

Monkeyboy said...

Well in the same way that the primary purpose of a school is to be an effective teaching environment, a restaurant should serve decent food. It's a radical theory but not without merit

Anonymous said...

Hey, that reminds me, whatever happened to the supposed pizza parlour next to Lithu's Fried Chicken on Endwell?

Brockley Nick said...

It was wishful thinking. No one has taken on that property yet.

Radical Shopfront Suggestion said...

Brockley is a bit edgy, arty and creative - so lets have a bright arty row of shops with camden/babur style sculptures on them.

Keep the victorian and georgian residential rows looking smart but lets inject some life in to the shops...

Discuss...

Monkeyboy said...

Burn the heretic!

drakefell debaser said...

Nice idea but I don't think Brockley has enough retail outlets or a sufficient diversity of outlets to pull it off successfully.

I would prefer it if the leaseholders just looked after what they have, adopted smart frontage rather than tacky and kept it clean and respectable.

That said some more Artmongers stuff like on the side of TM2 would be welcome I think.

Headhunter said...

Bit pedantic perhaps but there's very little if any Georgian in Brockley! Brockley was fields mostly until the mid 1850s....

I'm not condemning this shopfront just pointing out the paradox that people were whipped into a frenzy over the Speedicars sign, but everyone apparently loves this mock Palladian construction...

Anonymous said...

I hope the owners put more thought on the food than the frontage.It looks awful!!!

name said...

I saw this in the full woodchip, for the first time today. It reminds me of those faded seasides facades fabled in Smiths songs.

Anonymous said...

I think it's looking a bit naff, which doesn't bode well, I feel, for the overall aims and aspirations of the restaurant. I ate there a couple of times before it closed and the food was mediocre at best. Just goes to show that just because you're Italian, doesn't mean you can cook Italian food!

Anonymous said...

Radical Shopfront Suggestion said...

I reckon your idea would work better in Deptford than Brockley.

Anonymous said...

It looks fine. The only half decent shop fronts on that row are Sounds Around and Magi and they aren't perfect.
This is better than most of the others on the row.
The local council should give grants to businesses to improve shop fronts.

Bea said...

I really think it depends on what paint colour they use. If the scheme is fairly subdued I think it may look effective but I have a strong feeling that they will go for the colours of the Italian Flag and pick out the detailing in gold! It’s in such a prominent position (opposite the pedestrian crossing) that I hope I won’t have to put sunglasses on every time I walk past.

In a way it’s silly of them to invest in all this fancy detailing if they don’t clear it with planning first as it will cost them to get it removed - and I’m pretty sure that railing is “out-of-policy” as it rises above the other shop frontages.

I reserve judgement until I’ve seen the final thing but I’m not holding out much hope!

Changing Rooms redux said...

Was Laurence Llewellyn-Bowen involved? Looks like a piece of his handywork.

Still, more important to find out whether the food has improved - I shall be on the lookout for any signs of the tinned vegetables that have blighted my previous trips there.

Anonymous said...

My opinion is: what they really need to improve is the food. Especially their pizza - it used not to be wood oven-baked, and thus not Italian at all... really disappointing.

Tressilliana said...

Long, long ago before it changed hands La Lanterna was a decent local Italian restaurant. Let's hope those days will return with the ... er .... striking new facade.

Anonymous said...

council give grants for shopfronts?? How about the council doing their job and making sure businesses ABIDE by the rules! It seems businesses can do what they like while the council officers put their head in the sand. The only time anything is done is if someone complains. I would guess about 60% of the shops in Brockley Road do not meet the conditions set out by the council. This includes illuminations, shutters and signage without going into details about railings above the other shop fronts.

Anonymous said...

Ah... incoherent rage. The staple of every good blog.

Anonymous said...

Headhunter, "everyone" didn't go into hysterics over Speedicars' sign, you did.

Pete said...

It's funny and exuberant and inappropriate in a good way.

On a related topic, has anyone been to the small Italian deli just off Lewisham Market? It's superb - incredible Sicilian red pesto, the best olives I've had in London and a great cheese with almost whole black peppercorns embedded in it. And all the other stuff you'd expect - a multitude of hams hanging from the ceiling and good espressos while you wait. A real gem - better than the ones in Soho.

Monkeyboy said...

Yep, it's a proper deli. Degustation is great but limited. Brown's isn't a deli. Shame it's not a little closer

Anonymous said...

Yes, it's brilliant and has been there for years. Proper Italian, innit. Sometimes they talk Italian to you even if you can't talk back. I'd prefer less of the Italian biscuits and packets piled up everywhere and more of the fresh stuff - or maybe a table and chair or two - but I suppose there are sensible business reasons why that's not possible!

Anonymous said...

Mmmm...pesto. Whereabouts is this deli in relation to the market?

Now Then said...

Don Gennaro's Anon. Say you're looking across from the main entrance to the shopping centre; theres a pound shop and its down to the left in that funny little street with the back entrance (exit?) to the post office. Not a place to pass if you've any yen for that type of thing. The sun always seems to be shining in there no matter what conditions are like outside.

Anonymous said...

I totally agree about the Italian deli in Lewisham, by the way- it's brilliant.
Ok, to be honest, when I saw this fa├žade I did snigger, but I far prefer this to the hideous plastic signs over all the fast food shops along that stretch of road.

its a shame said...

Interestingly the facade is completely diferent to the one submitted in the planning proposals. The proposals passed also do not allow for the balcony or illuminated signage. I personally think its dodgy to submit one set of plans then build to another.

Anonymous said...

The balcony is an Ideal place for Police surveillance, to keep an eye on the dodgy dealings going on in The Barge.

Headhunter said...

Anon 20:52 - Actually, if you check your facts before commenting and look back at the Speedicars thread, I barely commented. I didn't express an opinion...

Tamsin said...

Totally agree with Pete - funny and exuberant and lifts the spirits. Hope they can keep it.

TJ said...

So as long as it gives you a laugh, it's ok?

Yes, let's have a personal guide to the conservation area rules. Raises a smile - keep. Pseudo environmental - double keep. We kinda like your business - do whatever ya like. Tacky plastic illuminated sign - I'm sorry, Mr Chicken shop owner/Taxi cabman, please change it as it's not within guidelines.

Jeez you guys - either have the rules or don't have them.

Brockley Nick said...

@HH

It seems to me there are three clear differences between this situation and the discussion of Speedicars' business:

1. The Speedicars sign was finished. This is not.

2. The Speedicars sign spoiled an otherwise beautifully-presented street. This is an attempt to improve a very shabby street, that we have been complaining about for years.

3. Speedicars' sign was an act of laziness - they couldn't be arsed to do a proper job, so they just plonked their old, ill-fitting sign on. They eventually replaced it and the shop looks great and it probably cost them no more than a couple of taxi rides to Gatwick to fix. La Lanterna have clearly gone to a lot of trouble and effort to improve their shop. If it is not to everyone's tastes, that is a different matter.

If someone can spell out very clearly what terms of their planning permission approval they think have been broken, please send me an email.

Headhunter said...

Nick - Yes, it's not finished so I reserve judgement, however it appears to fly in the face of the fact that this street is in a conservation area. As TJ says, either we have a conservation area which is enforced or we scrap the whole thing and don't bother. Currently the council just making a mockery of itself and reinforcing what everyone thinks that the council can't get its act together.

I agree that Brockley Rd is hardly beautifully presented and that pretty much every other shop front on the street contravenes conservation area but I just find it ironic that people here have moaned and whinged about metal shutters, UPVC illuminated signs and howled from the rafters about betting shops opening up, yet somehow this is fine....

One rule for the delis and restaurants and another for the fried chicken shops and bookies.

Brockley Nick said...

No HH, there is no inconsistency. The circumstances are very different, for the reasons I have just spelled out and you have accepted.

Futhermore, they have not installed any shutters or illuminated signs, so your point is even more invalid.

Westsider said...

HH and TJ - you want an absolutely black and white policy. We see shades of grey.

The reason why I support conservation area rules is because they are supposed to set a minimum standard, which raises the bar for the benefit of the whole high street.

This restaurant raises the bar for the benefit of the whole high street, whether or not it's in "good taste".

And whether it will be in "good taste" remains to be seen.

Monkeyboy said...

I wonder if nick clegg and dave send emails like this to each other.

Headhunter said...

Nick - I take your point that the Speedicars sign was an act of laziness, simply bolting an ill fitting plastic sign in an in appropriate space, however my point remains that this shop front appears not to sit well with guidelines that the council themselves have set up.

My piont regarding metal shutters and plastic signage is not "invalid" it was simply an example of things that people have moaned about here at Brockley Central (in fact you, yourself have raised these issues), yet somehow this mock Palladian edifice is immune. I am entirely aware that they have not (yet) installed plastic signage and metal shutters. Perhaps they will? we don't know yet.

Westsider - Surely whether or not this construction "raises the bar for the benefit of the whole high street" is yet to be seen and whether it is above and beyond conservation area guidelines is frankly a subjective view.

I don't see how it can raise the bar or go above and beyond guidelines if "whether or not it's in "good taste"" (or not) remains to be seen... Surely conservation area guidelines are in place to remove shades of grey.

As TJ points out "Raises a smile - keep. Pseudo environmental - double keep. We kinda like your business - do whatever ya like. Tacky plastic illuminated sign - I'm sorry, Mr Chicken shop owner/Taxi cabman, please change it as it's not within guidelines."

TJ said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Brockley Nick said...

@HH - you accused people (inc me) of hypocrisy for criticising other businesses that have shutters and plastic signage yet not criticising this.

That is not hypocrisy. It would be hypocrisy if they were insalling plastic signs and metal shutters and we were not criticising them for it.

Do you understand?

Brockley Nick said...

@TJ - I'll need you to email evidence, not post unsubstantiated claims, thanks.

TJ said...

Nick - are you joking? I'm not on trial here, so I do nothave to mial you anything; nor am I making unsubstaniated claims. You can take a look at the planning docs yourself.

I have always been (I believe) a reasoned blogger; I am a commitee member of Broc Soc. I have no reason to lie, and take offence at the suggestion.

Brockley Nick said...

@TJ - I have no reason to doubt you, but I have never allowed people to make unsubstantiated claims about local businesses that could be harmful to that business. Like I say, please send me the links or publish something on the BrocSoc website that I can link to.

I don't want to be legally or morally responsible for harmful inaccuracies, so I need evidence before I allow such claims.

It's nothing personal.

NXG_Resident said...

Has everyone here been taking steroids in the last 24 hours?

Headhunter said...

Nick - How is installing plastic signage and metal shutters, a contravention of conservation area rules yet constructing a large wooden, mock Palladian frontice to a shop in perfect keeping with the area?

Do you see my point? It's hypocritical to suggest that one shop owner (Western Union, chicken shop, bookies) is an afront to the area with shutters and plastic signs, yet another (Italian restaurant) bolting a large wooden front to their shop is fine.

Pete said...

I suppose that it depends why you dissaprove of metal shutters and plastic signage. Is it because they're out of keeping with the area or just because you think they're unattractive.

If it's the former then surely this shop frontage is equally out of keeping?

Personally I would look at the way that Oscar's in Ladywell was renovated and also Geddes as examples of what I wish more of our shopkeepers would aspire to.

Brockley Nick said...

I criticise metal shutters because they give they are totally unnecessary and give the impression of an area under siege from crime and encourage tagging.

I criticise illuminated signage because I find it profoundly ugly.

Both of these things contravene guidelines, which is the leverage we have to argue for improvements.

The unfinished La Lanterna doesn't do the former and I don't find it to be the latter. Kitsch, yes, but I don't mind it. Therefore, I am not argueing for improvements.

Therefore no hypocrisy.

Brockley Nick said...

Yes pete, quite. For me, it is the latter.

Sadly, metal shutters and illuminated signage are very much IN keeping with the area.

Anonymous said...

So is BrocSoc communicating with the council about this?

@Nick - disagree entirely. Building something different from the drawings is one of the preferred sports in Brockley.

If it is allowed then who is going to draw the line?

Next door to La Lanterna an application has been filed for the refurbishment of two new shop fronts. What if they decide for a copy of the Taj Mahal with tall pinnacles projecting into the sky?

I forecast the food is going to be mediocre anyway.

Brockley Nick said...

"@Nick - disagree entirely. Building something different from the drawings is one of the preferred sports in Brockley.

If it is allowed then who is going to draw the line?"

I agree with this point. I wasn't arguing with it, I was asking for evidence.

Brockley Nick said...

Also, is the "balcony" functional or it a stylistic feature? Anyone actually know?

TJ said...

Nick - my point was neither inflammotory nor libelious, and was the same as the anon you agreed with - the construction is not the same as the planning docs.

Everyone can take a look at make up their own mind - the link to the new porposed elveations is below. The document is from Feb this year:

http://acolnet.lewisham.gov.uk/ACOLLATEDOCS/50027_7.pdf

Headhunter said...

The point is however, not whether you find plastic signage and metal shutters hideous and wooden mock Palladia the height of kitsch titillation, but whether or not they are both situated in a conservation area and whether the rules set up by our council should be up for subjective discussion.

Some shopkeepers may argue that metal shutters are entirely necessary in Brockley and yet others may argue that plastic signage is an important element of marketing themselves to the local community. How are these views any less relevant than local residents believing that this kitsch wooden shopfront should be allowed because it's an aesthetic delight which raises the bar for other shops on the same stretch? I don't subscribe to that view, does that mean what I think is irrelevant?

TJ said...

Please note that the plans show illuminated signage - this was not passed in planning.

Headhunter said...

The shopfront on the planning application PDF file is completely and utterly different to what is actually being built!

Brockley Nick said...

TJ - thank you for posting the link.

Do you know whether there have been any conversations between La Lanterna and the Council since? Has BrocSoc spoken with Council planning officers on this issue and what was said please?

@HH - I didn't say your views were irrelevant, I said your claims or hypocrisy were bogus. Accept that and move on.

Robert said...

I agree with the critism regarding the fleshed out facade.

I have been in contact with the Planning officer at Lewisham, who has agreed that what has been constructed does not bare any resemblance to what has been built, and it may well become an enforcement issue.

Presuming there are now language barriers, I am going to pop down this afternoon to have a chat with the builders.

It's a shame. What had been drawn and approved was acutally quite reasonable - with an extending canopy, and simple, but illuminated sign.

Brockley Nick said...

Robert, your BrocSoc colleague TJ just said that the illuminated sign was not approved.

TJ said...

Nick - I have also raised this to planning.

Rob - I think you'll find tha tthe illuminated sign was not approved -but has to be subject to additonal planning applications - the details are on the planning consent docs from the council.

Headhunter said...

Nick - I think you're the one who needs to accept hypocrisy! As you say, my point is valid, simply dismissing it offhandedly doesn't make it go away!

Brockley Nick said...

I have no idea what that last post meant, sorry.

TJ said...

From the planning decision notice

http://acolnet.lewisham.gov.uk/ACOLLATEDOCS/60364_1.pdf

"You are further advised that separate permission is required for any new
illuminated signage, including fascia signs.
"

Headhunter said...

It meant that (sigh, once again), that it's hypocritical to condemn metal shutters and plastic signage and not this large wooden structure whichy flies in the face of the planning application and conservation area.

HRH The Prince Of Wales said...

Personally I like a bit of mock clasicism. What's wrong with mock?

Robert said...

TJ. I stand corrected!

Much better without the illuminated sign, I agree.

I am hoping that a chat with the foreman will clear this up without the need for enforcement. These things are usually just down to a bit of mis/non-communication on site.

Also Lewisham's enforcement team are pretty stretched - there are just three officers to cover the entire borough.

Brockley Nick said...

Yes, HH, but it isn't and that's not what I do.

I don't condemn them BECAUSE they are against conservation guidelines, I condemn them because I think they are wrong-headed and bring the area down with their ugliness.

If there were no guidelines then that would simply be my opinion. As there are guidelines, I can do something about it.

In this case, I don't like the design, but I don't mind it and therefore don't feel a desire to do anything about it. If other's do, that's up to them, but my position is not hypocritical.

Sigh.

Strictly Middle Brow said...

HH, stick to carbon bike frames and HR.

welcome to 2010 said...

People like HH are obsessed with the letter of the guidelines and miss the big picture.

There are loads of shops on Brockley Road which break guidelines and drag down the area, but because they arean't attempting to do anything new you don't hear a peep out of him.

Brockley Nick said...

@Robert - they have always been "pretty stretched" for the entire time I've been writing this blog.

Perhaps they need to divert resources away from Fairtrade co-ordinators...

Headhunter said...

OK, understood. Conservation area guidelines are irrelevant, what individuals think is what counts. On that score I would say it's perfectly acceptable to put in Fort Knox style shutters if shopkeepers fear for the security of their businesses.

Robert said...

The Article 4(2) direction for Brockley Conservation area is relatively new - it only came into force a few years ago. This is the policy that means that all changes that can be seen from a public aspect have to adhere to conservation guidelines. It also applies to shopfronts.

Before this came in, it was very difficult to influence the design of shopfronts. So you will find that any new shopfront in the area will be put under increased scrutiny.

Then maybe one day we will have a beautiful parade of shops that we can be proud to use!

Brockley Nick said...

No, they are not irrelevant, they are a tool to help the community.

It should be a matter of judgement how the tool is applied. On matters of planning you are a fundamentalist, I am not.

That doesn't mean I am a hypocrite it means you don't read things properly before commenting.

As for fort knox shutters, your judgment is poor. Just ask any of the high quality businesses around here if you don't believe me.

Changing Rooms redux said...

TJ that link didn't work for me - but I went onto the planning website and found all the stuff by searching for Biagio.

Anyone interested in seeing how La Lanterna was SUPPOSED to look, here is the link to the drawings:

http://acolnet.lewisham.gov.uk/ACOLLATEDOCS/50027_3.pdf

Regardless of personal taste (I don't have strong feelings about the design) it is galling that people feel free to depart fairly radically from the designs they put forward for approval. If they get off scot-free it encourages others to behave in the same way - presumably making it ever harder for the council to control non-compliance in the future.

Changing Rooms redux said...

PS the end of that link is 50027_3.pdf - it won't all paste in at once. Presumably that's why TJ's link didn't work either.

Brockley Nick said...

Robert, I agree with your point. However, there is an alternative risk, which is that the guidelines are so strictly enforced that new businesses steer clear of the area altogether and we are left with the status quo.

At present, we have the worst of both worlds, existing businesses get away with murder and new businesses are not dealt with effectively.

Robert said...

"Perhaps they need to divert resources away from Fairtrade co-ordinators..."

Agreed. As we all know - conservation and design quality is not particularly high on Lewisham's list of priorities.

Headhunter said...

WT2010 - I actually don't necessarily agree that we should necessarily keep to the letter of guidelines, I just think it's pointless setting up conservation areas, like the new one in Ladywell, when not a lot is dones to enforce them. Just makes the council look stupid.

Robert said...

Nick. "new businesses steer clear of the area altogether."

Do you really think that's true? It is not drastically more expensive to adopt a few modest design principles in a facade design.

I can also think of plenty of Conservation Area's that have a thriving local shopping parade. I would go as far as to see that it is the principles of the CA that have created this rather than prevented it. New businesses come to shopping areas that are visually appealing, which in turn attact more use.

Headhunter said...

Nick - Your stance was unclear until your last post I'm afraid. I did read properly. I don't like the shutters and plastic signs any more than you do - you haven't read MY points properly, I just think that if we're opening this up to personal point of view then they have as much right to be in place as this new shop front.

Node said...

Jeez handbags at dawn... Admittedly it's fairly eclectic, but why don't we just wait and see what it looks like when it's finished eh? Running to the council screaming about planning guidelines on a shopping parade that has very little charm anyway is crazy, if anything this could lift it out of the ordinary.

It's already going to struggle to be open 'within weeks' as the inside is still gutted, now you want them to change their whole frontage...

Brockley Nick said...

I do think it is a risk, yes. There are many investors who've had (in my view) good ideas about how to improve commercial premises in the area, that have had their plans turned down on the basis that they don't conform to the Council's idea of what Brockley Road should be for.

I don't think it's major risk in this case, but it is something that needs to be considered.

I think it would be better to spend our time and energy lobbying the "stretched" resources of the council to improve the really crappy stuff than lobbying them to deal with stuff that is a bit kitsch.

However, if the plans have been deviated from without supplementary consent, that is a different matter from the aesthetics of this design.

Brockley Nick said...

@HH - read the article. My "stance" was that I thought we should wait and see what it looked like before judging it and that I thought it could be reasonably jolly, like Babur's tiger.

I didn't say anything else until you started erroneously accusing people of hypocrisy. Anyway, yet another stupid argument I should know better than to get drawn in to.

Headhunter said...

Hmmm, still don't think your view was clear, don't think this was a "silly argument" and I'm afraid still think your view appeared hypocritical. But anyway....

Robert said...

Nick.
Not much lobbying involved. I will probably spend half an hour of my time on this - max. A couple of phone calls, a few emails, and a conversation with the builders.

If we can help to get this shopfront looking as great as possible, it may have a knock on effect on future adaptions on the parade.

Brockley Nick said...

@Robert - I wasn't thinking of your resource, but the Council's. It might take 30 mins of your time, how much of their's will it take?

They do this, they don't do something else. It's zero-sum, unfortunately.

However, I agree that a really stylish shop front would be a boon for the street. These owners are not necessarily the people to deliver us something like that, enforcement can only take us so far towards "stylish"...

Bea said...

Illuminated signage is of itself not an issue - it's when it is illuminated internally, plastic and projects from the side of the building that it’s problem (as does the one that is still there!). I hope they plan on removing it soon.

OK - the shopfront is made of wood and will probably be painted but the question is has this new shop front taken into account the “overall cohesion of the streetscape” (assuming all shops will eventually comply) and does it “give rise to an unattractive and muddled appearance”. I would argue, yes, if it retains that balustrade (which is cosmetic and not functional) but possibly OK without it.

Re shopfronts in Brockley’s conservation area, the council has this to say:

“Unsympathetic shopfronts:

Shopfronts in Upper Brockley Road, Brockley Road, Brockley Cross and Lewisham Way have had their historic shop fronts removed over the years and replaced by unsympathetic shop fronts, security shutters and oversized fascias in unsuitable materials such as aluminium and upvc. In addition, this has been done in a piecemeal fashion and without regard to the overall cohesion of the streetscape, giving rise to an unattractive and muddled appearance.”


“Alterations to shop frontages

Many alterations to existing shopfronts, illuminated signage and new shopfronts all require planning permission. In conservation areas the requirement to preserve or enhance the historic or architectural character of the area applies to commercial premises
as well as housing. New shopfronts should usually be in painted timber with traditional elements such as stall risers, timber fascias and traditional lettering or signwriting. Security shutters should be of the open grille type with the box concealed behind the
fascia. All architectural elements such as console brackets, pilasters and floor tiling should be repaired and retained. Aluminium shopfronts, internally illuminated plastic signage and luminous colours will not be permitted. For further information please ask
for our shopfront supplementary planning document.”

Anonymous said...

Providing the shop owner is willing to pay for it.

its a shame said...

No anon not provided they are willing to pay for it. Provided they want to trade.

name said...

I was neutral about this until I saw the plans.
Plans show one thing. Design on the street completely difference.
That is not on. It is a blatant, disregard of the planning rules and set a new low in the abuse of the system.

Anonymous said...

I have heard that the owner Biagio has ran out of money and has NOT been paying people on site that is why the job has stalled.

I thought something was going wrong when the young fellow Roy that was running the job for Biagio suddenly vanished, Must have been knocked too???

Now it seems that there are squatters living in La Lanterna! Not a good image for him and his new hotel!

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!