Fortress Cranfield
The Cranfield Bunker from its best angle, facing on to Harefield Mews
The Cranfield Road panic room is nearing completion. The building will house six flats facing on to Harefield Mews in an impregnable cube, once the courtyard between the new building and the shops is complete.
Work began earlier this year and a condition of the development was that improvements should be made to the two shop fronts included in the property - Essence of India and the former Holistic Centre, which is now a junk shop.
We'll leave it to the market to decide whether it looks like a nice place to live - and from the mews side, the large windows make it more appealing, in an office-unity sort of way - but from Brockley and Cranfield Roads it appears to turn its back on you in an act of defiance to the neighbourhood. They're going to need some very impressive doorknobs to make it look like anything other than a bunker from these vantage points.
The developers have also scrimped on their duty to the shop fronts. The junk shop's doorway and roof line have been poorly finished. The Essence of India still has the shutters which the developer was asked to remove. Together with bodge-job done on La Lanterna and the two-tone pavements we're left with after their widening, this looks like another missed opportunity to improve this stretch of Brockley Road.
69 comments:
Please let the architects know what you think about their great work:
http://mis-architecture.co.uk/
What a deeply depressing building. And disappointing that they've not come good on their improvements to the two shops. Who holds the developers to account for this kind of thing?
I think any estate agent is going to have their work cut out selling that one.
I guess it will end up as some sort of hostel to dump people with serious problems.
Perhaps a home for distressed architects and property developers in the midst of a life crisis?
Agree Anon,I believe it will become some sort of hostel,if it hasn't already/
"Who holds the developers to account for this kind of thing?"
Well, the Council. I suppose there's always the chance that they could put the agreed finishing touches to the shops before the project it completed, but but if they are intending to finish it properly, it's surprising they didn't get the builders to do it at the time they were working on the shop fronts.
The thing is, if you were the landlord, sitting on a property right next to zone 2 Brockley Station, in an area that is obviously improving, with commercial properties on the main high street and residential properties on a pretty street, wouldn't you try to build something a bit better, where you could attract buyers or renters with a bit more cash and a business in a position to pay a bit more rent than a junk shop presumably can?
Especially when you've been forced to go to the expense of installing nice big windows?
Brockley seems to have a lot of landlords who are either irrational or have absolutely no understanding of the area.
Has anyone ever bought anything in that Junk shop? How on earth does he make a living....even assuming he is probably only paying rates.
The smell from the restaurant is another downside to these flats, assuming of course that air can actually penetrate the fortress...
Got two pristine Graham Greene novels, that I hadn't read, for 50p each. I imagine that's not enough to keep his business afloat though.
its a mental health unit, thats what i was told.
The self fulfilling prophecy of the South East. Developers and Councils are used to benefit seekers as clients. So the south east will remain the home of benefit seekers and hostels. What a waste, the investment in transportation is actually having a negative impact on the area.
Since the ELL we have had, a red door Biagio, a junk shop, two van hire companies, massive hideous Council developments near the station with more to come, road and pavement works terribly executed...
I do believe the area is getting aesthetically worse rather than improving. I am only scared to think what could happen to the MOT area once it gets in hands of a local developer. Perhaps after the hostel vault they will build a prison, our very own Brockley prison for local shooters.
Perhaps Housemartins can shift it? It does look a little Stalinist.
wake up, people! Brockley is a prison.
@Anon1122 - if it was a mental health unit they'd have to apply for planning permission. It's flats.
"Since the ELL we have had, a red door Biagio, a junk shop, two van hire companies, massive hideous Council developments near the station with more to come, road and pavement works terribly executed...
La Lanterna's demise pre-dates the ELL, as do the van companies, the developments near the station are an improvement over what was there before and the pavements, while shoddily done, are still vastly better than before.
"I do believe the area is getting aesthetically worse rather than improving."
You're ignoring the huge improvements on Coulgate Street and Harefield Road and the gradual improvements, from Mo Pho to Brockley's Rock.
Brockley Road will improve in time.
Another issue with those flats is the garage next on Harefield Mews. Generally opened till late at night, using flammables and parking cars in front of the new building. It will provide interesting evening entertainment for the neighbours in addition to the 20 kids that meet in front of the hostel next to it.
I cannot for the life of me understand why someone in that road, and the Brockley Society did not oppose this bunker. What oh what is the council thinking of with its approach to the regeneration of Brockley!
I do though agree with Nick's optimistic view. But we have to work together to do it ourselves: the council obviously will not, without pressure.
Very disappointed.
Is the brickwork on that corner really as bad as that photo suggests?
Nick, what are you on! Name one mental health unit in Brockley that has EVER appplied for planning permission?
It's called 'support housing'. In other words, for those with low or medium support needs. They also have 'no support' units, but that's another story. Very crafty shifting of the boundaries of planning and care by Lewisham council and the housing associations.
Hadn't spotted that, Danja - yes, most of the bricks on the corner are visibly out of alignment. Doesn't speak well for the quality of the build, does it?
"Nick, what are you on! Name one mental health unit in Brockley that has EVER appplied for planning permission?"
Ashby Road mental health unit repeatedly tried and failed to get permission.
My neighbour has been working with residents in other roads who are pissed off about all this. We have a lot in our road. Some are good gaffs but some are absolutely atrocious! He suspects that the new block near the station on the west side is going to mental health and these news support units the council needs, the rest they will try to sucker others into buying privately.
"He suspects that the new block near the station on the west side is going to mental health"
This is turning in to something like paedo-paranoia - what block on the west side? If you mean Jude Court, just about to open, then it's affordable homes. If you mean the one at the beginning of construction, just off Mantle Road, it's affordable homes and social housing.
Ashby Road did not 'apply' for planning permission until pushed by residents.
If you are using that as an example though you should search further. Even though planning permission was not given, again due to residents, the building is now described as a 'house' at the council - and for tax purposes too. It is occuppied by several individuals the developer and council recognises as 'security'. You know it is office space so this is strange.
The developer does this to establish residential use, then claims later for a care home. Change of use by the back door. Easy!
I walk past this every day and think it looks ok. This photo makes it look worse than it is.
"Paedo paranoia". I resent your accusation which I find wholly offensive and designed to undermine me. I could just as well have said that there is a sex offenders hostel in my road. I did not, because I am not an alarmist person - even though I know the actual address. Please do not attempt to belittle my concerns as a mother whilst showing an alarming placidity and smugness that hides your support for the council or these companies.
I don't know the name of the building on the west side but it belongs to a housing association called London and Quadrant. Some of those units will go to their homeless residents on floating support.
Anon, there are various people posting on this site saying that just about every new building under construction is a mental health unit. That is what I was referring to.
The L&Q development is not a mental health unit.
I don't support the Council or the developers in this case, which is what the article is about.
I hate "homeless residents on floating support" how dare they not have a roof over their heads. Much better off letting them sleep on sofas or on the street, that way when they slip further down they can break into my house. I can either stab them or they end up in prison. Either way, problem solved.
Or alternativly, we can take some responsibility for those less fourtunate, or even take the more pragmatic position that supporting those who need it is actually cheaper and less likley to cause problems. Demonising every one on state aid, from ex-offenders through those with mental health issues to those temporarily cashless is not helpful
Does look rubbish though.
1 in 4 of the UK population will experience a mental health problem in any given year, according to Mind. Very few of them will be dangerous to others as a result. Most of them will be working, caring for family members etc while also coping with the problem.
Nick, you don't know what constitutes a 'mental health unit'. Any flat in any house constitutes a 'unit'. These units are managed by the housing associations and serviced via the council's floating support. Flats in houses that have already been converted do not need planning permission. Since the council owns these houses and sublets them to the housing associations then everything is kept quiet to protect the tenants and the council. You have three such units in your road, one in coulgate street itself, but these are well-run. Not so in my road where I have drunks, drugs, and, yes, paedos possibly too. Mind you I only know that this unit takes sex offenders and not what type of sex offending that is. Quite a shock that though! But I have said too much. I believe a report is due out soon lifting the lid on the whole sorry mess.
Tressilliana, what utter twaddle you speak.
What about Machete Man? The Manor Ave Fire Bomber? (Captured and incarcerated for life, thank Christ.) The Brockley Sex Attacker? (Not the Night Stalker by the way - and still on the loose. All hush-hush of course.)
Yes, and I'm going to second that. There have been three sex-related offences reported to police in one Brockley road alone, which is not mine. These have not be widely reported, presumably because the police hope to get their man. Whether such secrecy will pay dividends in the long run will be measured by the seriousness of these offences, whether they continue, and where the culprit is finally found to reside. If it is in my road then I will make a lot of noise about the policey of housing sex offfendrs in it. I suspect Tressilliana, by the online name you have chosen, you do not live in my road. Lucky you.
Thank you, Reg. I take it that you are a specialist in epidemiology and that you have checked the mental health status of the three people you mention? Interesting that you appear to be way ahead of the media in picking up that Delroy Grant wasn't the Night Stalker!
I got the 1 in 4 statistic from Mind, and the sources and provisos are given here:
http://www.mind.org.uk/help/research_and_policy/statistics_1_how_common_is_mental_distress
Factsheet on incidence of violence in people with mental health problems, again with sources:
http://www.mind.org.uk/help/research_and_policy/dangerousness_and_mental_health_the_facts
Many psychiatrists would consider someone with an alcohol or other drug problem to have a mental health problem. Mind don't seem to take that view above. You may be on the side of the psychiatrists here.
Reg, you do like the tabloidesque Capital Letter Arbitary Designation for offenders. Anyone whould think you have an unhealthy obsesion with crime. Did you buy those True Crime magazines?
Strikes me as a little odd.
I am beginnning to wonder if you may have been certified. I have said nothing about Delroy Grant's involvment in the current spate of sex attacks in Brockley. Why would I, Mr Grant was in prison, you idiot.
My neighbour has warned me about posting my concerns to this site. Reading some of the bleading heart liberal responses I am sickenned and understand why. I have only spoken out as a concerned mother in a street that has a sex offenders unit. What greater understanding is needed that that?
I'm out.
What bleeding heart responses? I would be concerned if there was a sex offenders unit near my house. I'd want reassurances about the level of supervision. But I think we have to face facts as well.
Fact 1: there are millions of people with various types of mental health issue living in the community. Most of them are not violent, and of those who are the great majority are violent either to themselves or to someone they already know.
Fact 2: when I was growing up in the 60s there were probably more sex offenders on the loose than there are now because there was such huge stigma around the whole issue that it wasn't reported to the police very often. If there are people living in Brockley who are convicted sex offenders, of course that's worrying but I'd rather that the authorities knew where they were than that they were in hiding. We can't keep all potential offenders locked up all the time.
If you live in the road of the name you use then there IS a sex offenders unit 'near' you.
Give up, Reg, you are pissing in the wind.
@anons - do you realise that if you don't give yourself a name, we can't tell you apart and can't tell which anon is responsible for which post(s)? It makes the thread harder to follow and you're less likely to get your arguments across, because they get lumped up in the amorphous mass of "postings from anons", which I for one pay less attention to than other posts.
As an anon I just accept other anons as other anons. They're just opinions, each as valid as each other, and not using a name reduces the bullying that goes on on the site.
You've missed the point.
Yes, anon, they're all valid, but it makes it hard to keep track of the debate and know who has said what - that's what Sigh is saying.
I'd say not using a name could in fact increase the chance of 'bullying' (although 'heckling' is perhaps a more realistic description, if even that), since people are more likely to be argumentative with someone who has no identity.
Back on topic, the architectural practice is called Mis-Architecture? - how apt in this case!
It is interest that although your earlier posting when the application was made refers to the application, there were very few comments made about it and those that were were either positive or irrelevant. The building as built is as shown in that application (DC/10/73387/x).
I don't understand why neither the Brockley Society nor the Brockley Cross Action Group sent in comments to the Council - they were both consulted - but in the absence of any concerted objections from anybody at the time, it is easy to see why the Council allowed it. Comments now are far too late. I guess there is a moral to be drawn from this - Nick flagged the development at the time, so no one can say they didn't know.
For what it is worth, I would have objected if it had been built in the Telegraph Hill Conservation Area. Whether it would have done any good or not is another matter -the huge multicoloured fortress that the New Cross Gate NDC wanted to build in the Kender Road triangle got through planning!
Those windows are bloody hideous. So, so grim. And black! For goodness' sake! Horrible.
@Anon 13:18 "Bleeding heart liberal"? Methinks you're either on the wrong side of the Atlantic with that kind of talk, or you don't realize what good company you're in here on Brockley Central where slagging off mental illness is tolerated (Tresilliana being the commendable exception) and shoddy developments inflicted on the residents of Lewisham are praised everywhere but in the Brockley Conservation Area.
Anyone seen the film 'M'?
It's no good you've seen off another Anon. Well done Tress.
Can anyone of any worth please give me any further news on the man filmed wielding the machete in Shardeloes Road?
Does anyone know where he lived or care, or know how he came to live there? More importantly, whether he was receiving any previous supervision under the Mental Health Act? I understand that he will not stand trial for his actions, as he is said not be accountable for his actions.
Yes my sympathies do extend to the vulnerable (non MH) residents at these moments. That's the apparent 3 out of 4 who do not yet have such issues.
Whatever I say, or believe, it is sadly all but a matter of time before the inevitable one out of the four does serious harm.
So reg, what do you propose we do with those with mental health issues? Lock them up for the rest of their days? Given that most are not so profoundly I'll that it's an appropriate option what do we do? Would you feel safer If there was no specialist care for them?
What about those who are not in prison for life? At some point they will be released, would we be safer if they were simply tipped onto the streets or do you think there is a place for some kind of transitional care?
It's an eminently practical question, sounds like you do not have an answer other than some kind of pre Victorian dump for those on the margins.
Reg, mental health problems as defined by psychiatrists include:
post-natal depression
other sorts of depression
anxiety
obsessive compulsive disorder
eating disorders
dementia
personality disorders
as well as what people tend to think of as 'madness', e.g. schizophrenia or bipolar disorder (which involves manic behaviour).
What you appear to be saying (do please correct me if I've got this wrong) is that your sympathies are for the people who don't have mental health problems. Well, that's understandable when somebody's life has been turned upside down by someone else's irrational behaviour - but the key word here is 'illness' - people don't choose to be mentally ill. Often they become ill because of a genetic susceptibility. Their lives are often completely wrecked by their illness. Don't they deserve some sympathy too?
Interesting detail: the modern vault has black victorian 4 panels doors. Mixing the new design with historical local features".
Nick could you ask the architects for a blog explaination of the merits of their project and why they are not refurbishing the shops as promised?
Also, shoud we ask them to plant climbing plants to disguise their horribly designed walls?
From the picture it looks like they have invaded a couple of inches of pavement area, is this correct? I hope they fix the broken pavement tiles. It also looks like they intend not to rebuild the original wall at the back of the shops, it is turning quickly into a dumping site.
"So reg, what do you propose we do with those with mental health issues? Lock them up for the rest of their days? Given that most are not so profoundly I'll that it's an appropriate option what do we do? Would you feel safer If there was no specialist care for them?"
When have I said that? My sympathies lie with anyone thrust into a ghetto, whether that be black, Jewish, or in this case diagnosed with a Mental illness and shoved into Brockley. We must part company on whether those dumped on society are actually given 'specialist care'. Though if it gives you the perception in order to sleep well, please do.
"What about those who are not in prison for life? At some point they will be released, would we be safer if they were simply tipped onto the streets or do you think there is a place for some kind of transitional care?"
Absolutely... but not in secrecy, monitored, tolerated, assisted. However the recidivist comes way down my list of sympathies.
"It's an eminently practical question, sounds like you do not have an answer other than some kind of pre Victorian dump for those on the margins."
No I do not have an answer. Please display with all your moralistic height where I have ever
suggested such persons should be 'dumped'? I have made no such statement.
Lots of people complaining about "secrecy" in where people are located, but what you mean is, they don't paint a scarlet letter on peoples doors if they happen to have a history of mental illness. Why should they have that invasion of privacy?
If someone wants to build a dedicated facility fine, the community should be consulted. But some posters are suggesting that any vulnerable people moving in to any flat is a problem or something they should be alerted to. That is wrong.
I have been lamenting about this wretch of a building for months. I noticed when it was being built how it had encroached on the pavement.
If it is a some type of half way house then that is so depressing, why are there are so many around here, spread them out a bit!
I hope it's not a mental health unit mainly because it looks such a depressing building. Personally I would rather have vulnerable members of society being supported. This wasn't the case in my house a few years ago when we had a guy with mental health issues housed in one of the flats. He drove a gay couple out through harassment and one night I was locked in my neighbour's flat whiilst he threatened to shoot us. He had mental health issues and seemingly had little or no support. He was taken away by the police and I don't know what happened to him. I do know that he should have been properly cared for and he wasn't.
Sorry, I'm rambling but I guess I'm more concerned about the hideous monstrosity of a building rather than it's potential inhabitants.
What is this monstrosity?
Why was it given planning permission??????
Is there any statistical evidence (i.e. other than anecdotal/people's perceptions) that Brockley has more than its fair share of housing for mentally ill or otherwise vulnerable people?
Presumably those that do live here are the responsibility of Lewisham BC (that is to say, if they weren't in their current housing they would have to be housed elsewhere by Lewisham council? Or is there evidence that other boroughs are housing vulnerable people in Brockley?
@Inquiring This is a very important question and one no-one has provided an answer to.
The other important question, before we even come on to the matter of how best to care for people with mental health conditions is is it true that these various properties being mentioned are actually housing or plan to house at risk people? No evidence is presented, only rumour and "someone I know tells me"...
I don't disagree that these issues are important, but we can't have a sensible conversation without some facts.
To the anon who says their neighbour "warned me about posting my concerns to this site. Reading some of the bleading heart liberal responses I am sickenned and understand why."
Someone warned you not to post because some others in the community might disagree with you? What on earth is wrong with that?
@anon 23:27 - Because the destination of the area around the station and Brockley road is identified as hi-density low quality dwellings.
The Council practically does not recognise the Conservation Area as any different from the rest of Lewisham and the Brockley Society was mistreated several times on this and other forums for trying to require quality developments in Brockley.
Btw, did you oppose it when the plans were presented few months ago? One should not always delegate to others...
"No evidence is presented, only rumour and "someone I know tells me"...I don't disagree that these issues are important, but we can't have a sensible conversation without some facts. To the anon who says their neighbour... Someone warned you not to post because some others in the community might disagree with you? What on earth is wrong with that?"
Please, where does it state that I said it was due to "community diagreement"? Why don't you stop the spin! He did not say 'some others in the community might disagree with you' at all. No, Nick, he said that a lot of the regulars here just trivialise concerns - and that you stoke these concens for ratings, or ego, and you twist what is or isn't said. He said you have a high moralistic tone with many, and not with those he called "Team Nick" - and that useful debate was made useless by posting here. He got that right. I was being polite in not providing this information to you. He does not see your site as representative of the community by the way. Sorry.
On the one hand your regular team asks others not to infringe on the privacy of those with mental health problems, whilst you then ask for proof of those mental health problems..?
Do you want the addresses in order that you can have the scales on your eyes peeled back, or to lambast the supplier? If you prove it you're damned and if you don't you're damned. It's a no win. Great way of stifling debate.
Incidentally why is it that you do not investigate further anything that may affect the price of your property, that way you can have a 'sensible' debate. Is it because it's too much work to establish the facts you so demand, and which are more easily established with your credentials (surely?), or does this compromise your own interests? If so, you must really forget stoking up property prices. Although the sex offender unit has not been established in your eyes, it does not mean that it does not exist. So get some dirt on those manicured fingernails.
Where can i join this 'Team Nick' and where do they play? Are there hats provided?
I'm curently in the 'Anon Impotent Rage' team and am looking to move on.
@Anon
"he said that a lot of the regulars here just trivialise concerns - and that you stoke these concens for ratings, or ego... why is it that you do not investigate further anything that may affect the price of your property, that way you can have a 'sensible' debate."
Sorry, on the one hand you seem to be saying that I and my team of acolytes play concerns down by trivialising them. On the other you say I stoke them up for my own purposes.
Later you say I ignore these concerns in case it affects my house price.
I tell you what, I wish I bloody did have Team Nick rather than a bunch of sniping anonymouses who criticise this blog in the most incoherent manner.
If you have some facts you wish to bring to light, write an article for this website and submit it to me.
By the way, I have asked both Cllr Johnson and Cllr Foxcroft to help clarify the facts of the level of care provision in Brockley as opposed to other parts of Lewisham and London. I asked Cllr Johnson for this information last week, before this issue blew up.
Just so I'm clear, what is the point you hoped to make? And who precisely do you think trivialised your concerns? In what way, and why does it matter what someone else says - if your point is a good one, others will recognise that, regardless of what others say.
I think this was your original post (hard to tell with anons):
"My neighbour has been working with residents in other roads who are pissed off about all this. We have a lot in our road. Some are good gaffs but some are absolutely atrocious! He suspects that the new block near the station on the west side is going to mental health and these news support units the council needs, the rest they will try to sucker others into buying privately."
What has this got to do with the issue you are now talking about - a sex offender unit on your road?
I don't think it's wise to point these places out, if you have common sense and are observant however you can tell which buildings around here are not simply residential homes.
I have no idea which of the buildings, if any, are used as homes for the mentally ill or sex offenders. And what is more, I don't care. It has never worried me. It still does not worry me.
People have to live somewhere and I will be as NIMBYish as I like over bad architecture, but not over who lives where.
I would like to post this comment without being another anon, but I fear I will be lynched by the "not in my street - keep them away from me - it lowers the tone of area" mob.
Replying to this whilst on holiday - but from what I remember of this application, it was for three town houses, with rather more modest detailing. This looks like a different thing altogether. BrocSoc looked at this application quite carefully. Lewisham planning were very pleased with themselves for getting concessions from the developer to improve the facades of the Brockley Road facing units -sash windows and shop fronts. Neither Lewisham or anyone else can force a retailer to remove an existing shutter if they don't want to.
I agree, it looks really bad - so we'll definitely have to raise the issue with Planning Control if there is a discrepancy.
Also - please don't blame the architect. They were probably paid very low rates to deliver a scheme that worked in planning terms. I imagine that they have had very little to do with this since that point. It is the developer and the builder that is at fault here.
There's a fairly major fact that those who think Nick has an issue with critisim. The comment section does not require registration and is almost completley un-moderated.
Kind of undermines your argument. You're free to make a point in as strong a way as you like, don't whine if someone responds.
You've highlighted the alledged issue of a disproportianate number of hostels of various sorts. Other question if the facts are as you state of if in fact it's a problem at all (compared to tipping them on the streets, unmonitored and untreated)
That's all. You should be glad there is a popular blog that alows you to warn us all of the danger you allege.
I think you're over emphasising the issue.
but from what I remember of this application, it was for three town houses, with rather more modest detailing. This looks like a different thing altogether. BrocSoc looked at this application quite carefully.
The application is linked to in Nick's earlier post which he links to in this article. The drawings look like what has been built, and are of a block of flats, not town houses.
The picture here does look stark, but the patio windows on the back of the building looks large and would provide good light - lets face it, these windows are onto an alleyway. A photo of the building in the road would be better - in context, It is very square and I was surprised that planning was given to build it straight onto the pavement, but I have def seen worse.
What's everyone on about? These flats are fine, it's a bloody commercial mews. They'll be sold for £160k to £190k I reckon, not bad. Why don't you ask the Brockley Society to intervene on the breeze blocking of Victorian shop fronts on Upper Brockley Road, oh that's right, they got the go ahead. Talk about picking your battles, useless.
I have juste spotted these plannign applications which threaten the whole of the mews areas in Brockley.
Location: UNIT 5, ASHBY MEWS, LONDON, SE4 1TB
Proposal: The construction of a two storey building to provide a live work unit at 5 Ashby Mews SE4,with studio on the ground floor and a two bedroom self-contained flat on the upper floor.
Case Officer: Monique Wallace
Application Number: DC/12/79463/X
Registration Date: 15 / 02 / 2012
Location: UNIT 1, ASHBY MEWS, LONDON, SE4 1TB
Proposal: The construction of an additional storey above the existing studio and workshop space at 1 Ashby Mews SE4 to provide a 3 bedroom residential unit together with alterations to the front elevation.
Residential in the mews?
Post a Comment