Brockley Road redevelopment begins

Demolition of the old buildings is currently taking place

The building bounded by Brockley Road, Cranfield Road and Harefield Mews is currently being redeveloped. The project involves the construction of 6 new flats and the refurbishment of two shop fronts at 169-171 Brockley Road - the Holistic Centre (which is in a particularly sorry state) and the Essence of India.

The current shop fronts will be reclad in timber, the air conditioning units removed from the roof, open mesh shutters installed, wooden sash windows will replace the uPVC ones and the brick work will be cleaned.

The storage and courtyard space on Cranfield Road has largely been demolished. The building programme should take approximately six months and when it's finished, let us hope we get something more like this and less like this.

47 comments:

lady said...

I noticed yesterday La Lanterna has turned red

Brockley Nick said...

Yes, a pretty poor paint job though. Don't see it as a sign that anything is actually happening there.

Mb said...

And i think it's made from MDF and was unpainted for ages? Don't think you can et external grades of MDF so may turn tatty fairly soon. I wasn't totlayy horified by the mad greco/roman pastiche but at least build it properly.

Here's hoping the new build will be better.

david said...

Still loving the Tower Hamlets re-generation effort shown in the link. Oh for somethign like that for greater Brockley.

Anonymous said...

6 flats, so 6 cars...

Brockley Nick said...

Yes, that's right. Everyone who buys a flat designed for young, childless singles or couples right opposite a Tube station and next pubs and shops will want their own car.

Tim said...

We definitely shouldn't build new housing in this country because it will lead to an exactly equivalent increase in cars, which is obviously an inherently bad thing.

Ps. See front page of FT for depression article about the death of British high streets.

Anonymous said...

Wow, no new housing? where do u expect the increasing population to live. or ar u gonna ban increasing populations as well?

J. Hunt said...

I think all young people should be banned from owning cars. End of.

Anonymous said...

Why? Having a car is a liberating experience.

Danja said...

Anonymice are very literal creatures.

Monkeyboy said...

Going to work without underwear....THATS liberating.

slim said...

Why? Having a car is a liberating experience.

Really? How can paying through the nose for insurance, fuel and maintenance, not to mention wasting hours of your life stuck in traffic, be seen as liberating?

boringoldfartdedicatedtopissingoffthe youngsters said...

Apparently (I heard it here) running a car has never been so cheap.

But seriously, young people need to conserve their pennies so they can afford the Ocado delivery from nearby Hatfield (thats somewhere to the north of Shoreditch).

Brockley Nick said...

Motoring is cheaper now as a proportion of average income and in comparison to public transport:

"[1980-2007]Car use has increased as disposable income has risen, against a backdrop of a small increase in the real cost of motoring and rising real costs of public transport fares."
Source: DfT Trends Report (2009)

boringoldfartdedicatedtopissingoffthe youngsters said...

Funny how official statistics often don't tally with reality. My perception is that it is much more expensive than it was 20 years ago. True small cars are cheaper, but they don't last so long, despite rust being defeated in mass produced cars, because of all the technology built into them.

Ed said...

Thank goodness, that holistic centre(!?) is bloody depressing.

Brockley Nick said...

@Boringoldfart - I think what you mean is that it's funny how our personal perceptions often don't tally with reality.

Anonymous said...

New cars don't last as long? If you were ever kicking about in the 80s or earlier, you'd know that every cold or damp morning Britain awoke to the sound of engines trying to start. They were rubbish! You couldn't even get them to pull away half the time in those days, and that's when they were in good working order.

Anonymous said...

Secondhand cars are cheap as chips. And you can't just dismiss the lack of corrosion. When was the last time anyone had their car welded as part of the MOT? was regular as clock work when i wasd a nipper. Also a 100 000 miles on a car these days is not difficult. It was an acheivement 30 years back.

Few people want no cars but the assumption that you should just build to accept more and more is not sustainable.

boringoldfartdedicatedtopissingoffthe youngsters said...

Perhaps you'd like to tell that to the Chinese, while we piously screw in another 'energy-saving' flickering lightbulb.

boringoldfartdedicatedtopissingoffthe youngsters said...

@Nick, no reality doesn't tally with your beloved statistics.

@anon, some used cars are cheap because they cost a lot to run these days. Try buying a used mini under 10 years old, or a VW camper up to 50 years old. I suppose choice has nothing to do with statistics.

Anonymous said...

they've built far more VW campers, they're popular so people spend a lot more to keep them running so your analysis is flawed. How many Princesses are in the classic car mags. They were rubbish and were not popular, so shuffled off to the scrap yard when they (inevitably) broke down.

Highly ammusing that challange the 'so called' facts. Why should the DfT invent something that could so easily be refuted? Are you also one of those people who believe old cars were safer because 'they were more solid'?

Donald Stokes said...

Don't diss the Leyland Princess!

Anonymous said...

Sigh.... the last of the classic 'beige' school of british automobile greatness.

Headhunter said...

Cars are waaaay more reliable these days than they were in the 70s and 80s! OK so they have far more complex electronics onboard than they ever used to have and they sometimes fail (and if they do are expensive to fix) but overall corrosion and engine failure are far less evident. Modern cars are warmer and better insulated, more efficient, more comfortable, and far, far safer.

Even though motorists whinge on about the cost of driving being prohibitive, in fact according to statistics, the true cost of motoring is subsidised by the state:

"The Real Costs of Motoring" (August 1996) published by The Environmental Transport Association calculated that revenue from taxes and VED came in at £16.1bn however the cost of motoring, taking into account road damage, congestion cost to business, air pollution (damage to health/cost to NHS, damage to buildings), cost of accidents etc came in at a hefty £50.8bn

Anonymous said...

my car cost me £40 on ebay polo had it two years never spent a penny on bar annual mot which it always passes simples

Alistair Cowley said...

You can prove anything with statistics, as I'm sure we'll find out as the coalition becomes more and more unpopular.

Of course modern cars are more reliable in many ways, and safer.
But all the gizmos aren't more reliable, and they rely on countless sensors telling the EPU its OK to carry on motoring.

Modern cars are designed to last 6 or 7 years. Mercedes say the Smart engine is designed for about 60k miles. Why do you see so many cars with malfunctioning lights? Because in many cases its impossible to change the bulbs without visiting the dealer. Simples, I think not.

Anonymous said...

Who says modern cars are designed to last 6-7 years? sounds like 'bloke down the pub' talk to me. Why are the used car ads full of cars that seem to have mangaged to not fall apart after 7 years?

I remain to be convinced.

E. Marples said...

Motoring journalists say they don't last because of all the bits & pieces demanded by ever-updating bureaucracy.

Anonymous said...

More cars =>>> car park zone!!!

Bored and tired said...

Surely the fact that there are so many 7-yr-old cars being sold is an indication that it could be true! Basically people know they're about to start going wrong - or a few things have already started going wrong - so they pass them on to someone else. Our newly bought 7-year old car is proving a nightmare, for example.

Anonymous said...

hope they improve the food in Essence of India whilst they're at it

Anonymous said...

Cobblers. Modern cars are more reliable, cheaper and safer. Not sure what beurocracy has to do with it? You mean the insistance on crash survivability? Erm.... I'll take that thanks. Yes there are more little gizmos that can go wrong. Old cars had fewer gizmos, the gizmos they did have went wrong. They rusted, leaked and required far more servicing. I think you're mixing up the fact that people may replace their cars more often? Possibly, because they are cheaper......

D.Bowie said...

Or because keeping up with the proverbial Jones's has become a religion.

Anonymous said...

this blog is wierd why is everyone on about cars.wot u all on abaht u crazy people

Anonymous said...

Religion, now you're talking. God is dead, the end.

Fido said...

Please clean up after your god.

Bea said...

Back on thread - Nick - I was looking at the planning approval online (Planning Application - DC/10/73387/X) and noted that it was granted on condition that new more detailed plans are submitted for the shop fronts “Details of the proposed new shopfronts shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before the commencement of any works on site and, unless the local planning authority subsquently agrees in writing to any variation, the shopfronts shall be implemented entirely in accordance with the approved details before any of the flats which form part of this application are first occupied.”

The bit I'm interested in is "before the commencement of any works on site". No new plans have been attached to this application. They are not just clearing out the garden but pulling down the mews buildings. Admittedly, I've only done a quick search of the Coucil database but have been unable to locate any new planning applications for this site nor have there been any notifications on lamp posts etc. Have you by any chance seen the new plans for the shop fronts. If so, could you let me have the link?

I just hope that they do indeed sort out the shop fronts and do not leave Brockley with another half done job aka La Laterna.

Brockley Nick said...

Well spotted Bea, I will ask for clarification from the Council once they have come back to me on another story I have been pestering them for an answer about.

Bea said...

Err "back on topic" even ...

Bea said...

Thanks!

Anonymous said...

is the Victorian frontage being demolished???????

Anonymous said...

No - well only through slow neglect.

It's the mews at the back that have been demolished and the only thing left standing is a very wobbly looking wall with two windows (incl. frame and glass) that's unlikely to remain standing in strong winds.

Anonymous said...

Well I though this planning development was subject to refurbishment of the shop front 169-171.

Is it still the case? I see no sign of activity at the front of the building...

Anonymous said...

I called planning to find out what was happening here and was given the new planning application number which is "Planning Application - DC/10/76165/FT".

This was approved today and it is possible to see then new shop fronts elevations in the document tab..

What with this - and the new pavement - this stretch of Brockley Road will be looking a lot better! Would be great too if a bakery really did move in!

Bea

Anonymous said...

I called planning to find out what was happening here and was given the new planning application number which is "Planning Application - DC/10/76165/FT".

This was approved today and it is possible to see then new shop fronts elevations in the document tab..

What with this - and the new pavement - this stretch of Brockley Road will be looking a lot better! Would be great too if a bakery really did move in!

Bea

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!