New houses proposed for Brockley Cross

The redevelopment of Brockley Cross continues with the proposed construction of two new houses on the land between Geoffrey Road and Upper Brockley Road. The land sits in a disused garden on what is effectively a large traffic island and close to the car lot, which is also targeted for redevelopment. We quite like the design and small two-bed houses are in short supply in the area.

85 comments:

NIMBY monster said...

NNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Anonymous said...

Looks good,and makes a change from sprawling developments.

Anonymous said...

Another monstruosity. The rear elevation is a brick wall the building will be taller and more imposing than the two victorian houses next to it.

Council officials will love it!!

S Beeny said...

Its a bit shorter than one neighbour and a bit taller than the other and space between them. In other words, the height is not out of keeping and certainly not "imposing" unless you think imposing is any height above the height of any building withing walking distance. The worst you can say is that it's unexciting, it's similar to the rows of victorian teraces in the area.

http://acolnet.lewisham.gov.uk/ACOLLATEDOCS/79472_1.pdf

Brockley Nick said...

It's also shorter than the houses opposite and shorter than the building that has plannnig permission on the car lot.

Anonymous said...

The planning application makes reference to "car".

DESTROY IT WITH MUNG.

Alex said...

Just noticed that the principle in charge of this practice taught me at uni. Who knew he would end up so close to me!

Seem to remember, and his website reinforces this, that he specialised in bridge design. I remember him saying that he had designed the longest bridge in Europe (in Lisbon). Can't actually see any previous resi work on the website.

I don't find the proposal too offensive however it's not exactly putting a new architectural landmark on the Brockley map and the plan could do with looking at again (noted that the drgs are for discussion).

lll said...

It needs to have a drive for the occupants' car.

Crofty said...

Meanwhile they're halfway through pulling down the old Master Windows place opposite the Brockley Jack, despite their planning application having not yet gone through...

The Thinker said...

On a basic level, I find the design not too offensive, I would love to have seen more sustainable design and technology incorporated within the design.

It's 2011 and it's in a conservation area...

Oh no... now I'm beginning to sound like one of my old uni lecturers. lol

On personal note, it feels a shame we're loosing more greenery and gardens to squeeze another small house in.

I think we could do with more affordable family sized homes and gardens within Brockley.

I sometimes feel we carve up houses and plots for flats a little too easily.

Mb said...

What's the latest on the used car lot plans?? That's the one with more impact to the immediate area.

Anonymous said...

With all these new propertys going up, its no wonder they want to build a new sewer gate in Deptford.

Bazalgette said...

Erm....... What extra "sewer gate"?

Geoffrey said...

Why do all the new developments in Brockley Cross have to be so obviously out of keeping with the surrounding buildings? Is it some macho thing about architects?

It's nasty, nasty, nasty.

But as most of the other new developments in the area are equally horrible, who cares any longer? Brockley Cross is a mess and just becomes messier by the day.

The architects don't care, the developers don't care and I suspect the planning people at Lewisham won't either.

Brockley Nick said...

What style should it be in keeping with? There are at least half a dozen in the immediate area.

Anonymous said...

Mung deco.

Robert said...

I think it's very disappointing that they have not designed a confident facade that addresses the road. Instead they seem to have gone for "hide it behind a big brick wall" approach. Not great urbanism - and yet another wasted opportunity to add something positive to the Cross.

Brockley Nick said...

@Robert

The wall is already there - so presumably protected by the conservation area?

Given that it's effectively inside a traffic island, I don't particularly blame them for wanting to keep it.

Deptford Pudding said...

@Bazelgette: you can read about the sewer tunnel here http://deptforddame.blogspot.com/2011/06/thames-tunnel-consultation-possible.html

Bazalgette said...

Yes DP. I was being a little tounge in cheek. There are no plans for a "second swere gate" the plan is to build a large bore interceptor to capture excess sewage/rainwater before it exits into the Thames via a number of Combined Sewer Outflows, including one at deptford. The scheme will all but stop that happening, so well have less poo in the river, This is a current problem we have now due to the population and sewage system that exists - even if london stopped growing. it's not caused by, or being built because of new housing at Brockley Cross or anywhere else so anons comments are incorrect in all aspects.

MalB said...

Nick "What style should it be in keeping with? There are at least half a dozen in the immediate area."

All the houses opposite look in exactly the same style to me. Even taking into account the houses on either side there is nothing else like this. The design is, I think, extremely poor and out of keeping with the area.

They are using some London Stock brick (not red brick) but that is about it. The street elevation really looks the side elevation with lead dormers pointing out sideways rather than to the street. The huge dormers bear no relationship to anything around them. The windows are horizontal rectangles whereas almost every other property has a vertical feel to it. The windows are casement, every other property is sash else is sash. There is no alignment between the tiny roof windows and the large ones below. The ratio of window to brickwork is all wrong for the area. There is absolutely no decorative feature enhancing the bland and plain brickwork.

How S Beeny can say it it is similar to the rows of victorian terrances, I can't begin to understand.

Together with the wooden ground floor and the flat lead roof it reminds me exactly of the tacky little boxes which sprung up all over conurbations like Swindon and Slough in the early 1970s.

It is not an inspiring site but frankly, in my view, this doesn't improve it.

Anonymous said...

Well you seemed to know what i was on about Bazelgette,so couldn't have been all wrong.

Bazalgette said...

Well yes, there is some major sewer works planned for deptford that will affect (for the better) how much poo is discharged into the river. I was hoping it would provoke you into explaining your statement. It appears you haven't read any of the proposals or the objections.

"With all these new propertys going up, its no wonder they want to build a new sewer gate in deptford"

1) they are not building a new "sewer gate" at deptford. If anything they are taking one almost completely out of use

2) the scheme is required even if they build no more new housing anywhere, not that anyone is seriously expecting London to stop growing

So yes, your assertion is completely wrong on both of it's points. Clear?

Anonymous said...

I disagree, the building is taller than the roof apex of 161 (chimneys do not count)

Brockley Nick said...

@MalB - I'm not saying I don't like architectural consistency (although I do think it's an overrated virtue), but I can't see how that style of house on this small plot.

Even if they could fit two terrace houses of the same style as the opposite side of the road (which I doubt as it's a tight site and they are quite big houses), that would look pretty odd sandwiched between the two houses on the other side. It would also mean both those houses had to look at blank side walls and people walking down Upper Brockley Road would be looking at the back of one of those houses (and I can tell you that little thought was given to how that style of house would look from the rear, when they were built). The whole thing would look bizarre. You'd also have to knock the existing wall down, given that the point of those houses is that they have steps leading up from the pavement. There would also be no rear garden for either house, which would a) be unfortunate and b) mean that the design of the house didn't really make sense.

This design, which turns the houses on 90 degrees from the road, is therefore quite clever.

MalB said...

Brockley Nick - I wasn't saying it should be exactly the same as the houses opposite - in keeping doesn't mean repeating the design opposite and I agree with you that that wouldn't work. You said however that there were lots of different styles and I was pointing out that almost the whole of the other side of the road was only one design. Indeed a three storey Victorian terrace of two houses would look somewhat odd there although it is possible to do a semi-detached design of the same.

I would have gone for something with a more georgian feel which would sit well against the property next door. Georgian properties often had quite large side windows, so you could easily design around the issue you mention of the blank-end walls. Mind you, the Victorians had ways of overcoming that in some of the better semi-detached designs as well.

The proposal, for the reasons I enumerated, is, in my view, extremely ugly. As I say, it is back to the 1970s little boxes made of ticky-tacky, even down to the wooden clad ground floors. Ugh.

I don't normally write in with planning objections to properties outside my direct area, but having had this one brought to my attention, I am half tempted to.

NAT said...

The house next door on the sketch isn't Georgian, but it does have the pleasing low pitch hip roof we associate with that era. How difficult would it have been to refer to that neighbouring roof in the new house gable elevations?

Wouldn't that be interesting?

Anonymous said...

NAT.. I agree. I also appreciate (for clarification) that the property next door is Victorian but it has the styling of a late Georgian property, which is why I suggested "georgian style" to distinguish it from the obvious Victorian style of the properties opposite.

MalB said...

PS
That last Anon wasn't an Anon, it was a MalB. The "choose an identity" button didn't seem to take. Mea culpa.

NAT said...

Thanks MalB. Understood.

Brockley Nick said...

@MalB - time for my mea culpa. The consultation deadline was last week. I saw the application too late to post it in time for that.

Robert said...

Lewisham Planning usually accept objections after the stated date.

MalB said...

Nick, off topic I know, and may have been covered before as I am new to this here blogging, but a question prompted by my wrong clicking earlier.

Why is the "Leave your comment" box next to the earliest post?

I am generally responding to a later post, so that means that when I write my response, I can't see the message I am replying to. I either have to scroll up and down all the time or write my comment elsewhere and then transcribe. Not as user friendly as it should be.

Could the "leave your comment" box not be by the latest comment - or, better still, even in a different window?

If it was in a separate window then a user could scroll up and down looking at comments at the same time as composing their reply. Better still, the existing comments could run across the whole page, rather than leaving the right hand side of the page as white, unused and unuseable and halving the amount of scrolling required.

Appreciate that this is blogging software, but I don't know whether it is customisable (or whether the authors are even aware of how annoying the layout can be).

OK maybe I am the only person who finds this annoying, and if so I'll shut up. But just thought I'd mention it.

Brockley Nick said...

@MalB - I share your pain, but I don't think it's possible to change.

Danja said...

I don't think these look great. Their active face is all the wrong way round, and dormers look really clumsy, especially from the side.

They look very half-hearted to me, neither one thing nor the other. A bit of a Barrett box with stonking great dormers whacked on the top.

Brockleycentralandallthingssoutheastandtheworld. said...

Nick, your selectivity on the other thread and its closure must not go without comment.

Are we now to deduce that evidence, having been presented, is thereby covered up - by you? Threadlocked so to speak.

If so, this suggests that a new cognomen for at least one slanderous poster here is now confirmed if not silenced. Delivered up by a 'Bassoon' no less - and who emerges fully vindicated, but for your slight of hand that is. Fair play indeed.

Bandit said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

Funny how people can post out and out racism on this site, but when you say you take a leak against a wall it gets deleted. The moderators need their heads examining.

Brockley Nick said...

"Funny how people can post out and out racism on this site"

No they can't.

Anonymous said...

not out and out racism, but plenty of bigotry... on an almost daily basis

Brockley Nick said...

So not racism then. But opinions you don't like.

Brockley Dogging Society - Honours Department said...

And dogging, this site has the most complete coverage in south London. Our membership has shot up,you can't buy this kind of penetration, and let's face it, we'd know.

Nick has been awarded the Stan Collymore medal for Services to Dogging. He declined the award ceremony, that's the measure of the man. Modesty incarnate.

Paul said...

You seem fairly nonplussed that bigotry is so common on here Nick.

Brockley Nick said...

@Paul, not at all. Bigotry is a very broad term and a label easily applied to any opinion you disagree with. I don't accept that there are many bigoted comments, though people often express views I think are wrong or sometimes unpleasant. However, better for stupid people to have their views heard and argumed against than censored. Racism, homophobia, misogyny, misandry and religious bigotry are not tolerated and frankly, rarely appear.

Welcome to 2011 said...

FFS, the righteous indignation of the wronged urinator! All he wanted was the chance to show off about who's houses he chooses to wee against and they wouldn't let him! But what about the bigots! The bigots!

Get over yourself wee-man. You too Paul.

Anonymous said...

Bigots rarely understand what they say as bigotry even though it may be perfectly obvious to everyone else, and a bigot is always willing to allow those views to be aired, even to the point of providing a platform for them.

Welcome to 2011 said...

That's convenient! Anyone I don't like is a bigot and anyone who says they aren't is a bigot too, even if they don't know it!

Tressilliana said...

Anon, if that is an allegation that Nick is a bigot, you are making a fool of yourself. Nick runs this blog in his spare time, as far as I can make out. If he wanted to use it as a propaganda vehicle, he could do that very easily indeed by restricting comments to members, or pre-moderating all posts. He doesn't.

Anonymous said...

Nick does not 'run this blog in his pare time'. It's part of a stragey dictated or condoned by his employer.

It's an American thing actually - so do not be fooled.

How does he have so much time to police all these threads, and at varying times of the day, that are not lunch breaks?

Get real Tressilliana! Take a look at Wal-Mart in the USA for these PR-led activities. They, the "PR", are the Matrix.

Cue the supporting detractors.

patrick1971 said...

Anon @ 1042: biggest laugh of the day so far, thank you.

Brockley Nick said...

Good stuff Anon, keep it up.

Five years ago (a lifetime in social media terms), one team from one of Edelman's 54 offices worldwide made a mistake in creating a blog for Wal Mart that was not transparent enough. As a result of that mistake, Edelman put in place a very strict code of conduct for all its employees about how to behave in the fast changing world of social media.

You'll note that, in accordance with that code of conduct, I am completely transparent when writing about anything possibly related to clients - even down to writing about my work for Manchester City when writing about Spurs. I am also open that I am an employee of Edelman.

I'd love to know what you think the end game for this 'Matrix-like' strategy is that's worth so much of my time and how much they pay me to moderate spats between neighbours at midnight on a bank holiday weekend? And how developing a platform to promote bigotry in SE4 makes good commercial sense? Truly, we have taken the blue pill.

No sir, I do it for the love of all of you. Even you, anon.

Brockley Dogging Society - Black Ops Division said...

Nick, the 'package' is being hand delivered to your usual charity in the Cayman islands. We've decided to use Fernando this time, Colin has developed a rash used to attach the false beard.

Bill said...

If anyone here is in advertising or marketing, kill yourself.

kolp said...

Nick is a bigot when it comes to religion. I was shocked at the knee jerk reaction as I thought he was always reasonable.

Brockley Nick said...

@Bill - Thank god he left PR out of his routine.

@Kolp - QED my earlier point. 'Bigot' is an easy label to apply to anyone whose views you disagree with. If thinking that 'more religion' is not the solution to the London riots is bigotry, then then word has lost all meaning.

I could equally say you are a bigot for dismissing a debate about economic and social development in cities by saying "I don't need more things or things faster. What might be better is 15% more Buddhism in society. There's a lot on unenlightened behaviour."

Anonymous said...

"A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one exhibiting intolerance, and animosity toward those of differing beliefs."


all pretty simple really

kolp said...

Well you could but it wouldn't hold much water seeing as I was talking about my views about myself and I want I need for myself.

Whenever religion is mentioned on here, you seem to come out with knee jerk and often abusive remarks. Why?

An example; the role of religion was mentioned by me regarding the riots. You came in feet first, making strident statements about the total irrelevance of religion. I didn't want to get into an online barney. As it soon becomes a bunfight with everyone piling in.

But I later posted about Birmingham riots and Tariq Jahan's Islam in terms how he reacted to the horror of losing his son, to riot related disorder that could have spun out of control and become severely racially divisive. You said nothing is response, you revise your remarks, nothing.

And what kind or remark or epithet is "God botherer"? Seriously, it's straight out of the schoolyard.

A lot of people are atheist but have the mental capacity to accept that there are people with differences of worldview without abusing others for that worldview.

If someone mentions religion its an issue on this site. Religion is a part of people's identity, culture, heritage it shouldn't have to be a subject, we evolve from harassing people about their sexuality and discriminating about their race to a large extent, but religion is still to be accomodated.

Anonymous said...

I think pr is in there by proxy.

Monkeyboy said...

"Religion is a part of people's identity, culture, heritage"

absolutly you can accept that (I do)and be an absolute atheist and believe that religion is not required to lead a good life.

As for bigotry, religion has that written into it's very DNA. Unless you accept the "I'm not religious, I'm spiritual" approach and take the nice, inoffensive bits, from each religion. A spot of Karma, a bit or re-incarnation, no eternal damnation but everlasting life, love thy neighbour - but not if it's a chap, ignore God's terrible judgement but accept his unconditional love. It's like going to one of those Chineese Banquets and only having the crispy duck, leaving the tofu for those not quick enough with the chopsticks.

You may find my post offensive, it's not the same as being a bigot.

Tressilliana said...

The difficulty is that gender, race and sexuality are not a matter of choice, but religion is. If I chose to be a pastafarian or a Jedi, should I be exempt from all critical responses to that decision? I don't think so. Atheists and agnostics get plenty of patronising responses from religious believers.

Brockley Nick said...

@Kolp - the only time I am critical of religion on here is when someone tries to suggest that religion is the answer to something other than their own personal existential issues. If you're religious, that's fine, but the role of religion in society is a political question, worthy of critical debate, like any other issue on here. 'God botherer' is on a par with 'sandal wearing' to describe hippies.

news flash said...

God botherer’s complain about the usage of term yet demonstrate the term immaculately in online forum about new houses.

whirligig said...

There's a difference between being critical of religion (which is quite legitimate) and being contemptuous of it. Casually labelling every religious adherent a "god-botherer" is merely contemptuous.

Anonymous said...

Contemptuous? perhaps. That's not bigotry, I leave that to those with absolute views on what constitutes moral behaviour.

kolp said...

If you want to continue to abuse people, make contemptous or snide remarks anytime someone mentions religion fine, your choice but it sad reflection on your rather than them.

That's all I'm going to say on this matter for now.

Brockley Nick said...

@Kolp - who said they'd do that? Not me. I even namechecked the Indian church as one of the best things about Brockley in a contribution to the Lewisham Council website.

If you can't tell the difference between criticism and bigotry, I'm glad that's all you have to say on the matter.

ticket to ride said...

pfff, someones thrown their prayer beads out the room..

kolp said...

Nick you may not believe in karma perhaps some basic physics might get through "Lex III: Actioni contrariam semper et æqualem esse reactione"

Namaste.

Mb said...

@kolp, some random Latin does not really illuminate your argument.

Brockley Nick said...

@Kolp - An eye for an eye, eh? I thought you'd decided to turn the other cheek.

If you think a flippant aside about "god botherers" aimed at no one in particular is an equal and opposite reaction to calling someone a bigot then I take it you're as much of a physicist as you are a social scientist.

Religious ideas are no more or less worthy of critical analysis as George Hallam's ideas about industrial policy. There is nothing special about faith that exempts bad ideas from criticism, sorry.

Danja said...

Dastardly god-not-botherers.

TC said...

I am afraid infill of gardens like this will become common place if the population continues to rise.

We need more birth control as I am sure all the Catholics on here will agree.......or not

Mb said...

As an ex catholic, I'm going to withdraw before something happens that we'll all regret

Simon said...

I don't think you expected the Spanish Inquisition Nick!

NAT said...

Can I do it...Let me do it...


NO ONE expects THE SPANISH iNQUISITION!

Simon said...

Thanks Nat-I wondered how long it would take.

NAT said...

Love that one.

kolp said...

These "flippant asides" are so clever aren't they? Where do they come from? You probably don't know "it just felt right right" eh?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1V_qz9I1Nk&NR=1

Replace "god botherers" with bus wankers, so funny and yet so cool!

Anonymous said...

bigotry to bullying, what next? A lynch mob?

way to go boys...

Enlightened said...

disagreeing and even ridiculing someones position is hardly a lynching. Also, unlike the school playground BC is not a space anyone has to share with anyone else. People Before Profit were not bullied, they were criticised, ridiculed and sometimes supported. If religion and the religious think they have a message so important that it has a bearing on politics, our laws and what people decide to do with their bodies, they must accept the same level critasism as any other lobby group. If it wants to position itself as something as signifficant as which football team you support or whther or not you like marmite then it wouldn't be getting such attention. Belief in the supernatural does not mean the burden of justifying your position should be less.

Atheism and questioning the validity of others belief is as old as history. Lets leave the actual lynching to those with jelous gods.

Trumpet said...

The problem I have with sites like this, Nick - 'Hyperlocal' you may have termed it - is that it seems to open up the house, street, village, to the scrutiny of 'falsely named' persons who are not affected by the comments made becasue they do not live in the places affected.

Many posters here seem to take the piss when someone shows genuine concern for their street, or have negative input, and under the convenient cyber veil. (I use one here merely to illustrate the point, and to frustrate those that always do.)

That many of these regular false name commentators, Guardians of Brockley And All Things SE4 not, are often protected by the site's author in every insult they throw at the unwary is unworthy.

Now, what was once really Brockley, a naive little local village, has been turned into a middle-class wannabe property-rich free for all fuckfest. A Brockley Central 'do over'. And with Nick Barron at its helm, these commentators mill around like schooldchidren around the cyber bully. Muscle and violence exchanged by overwhelming intellect and false-caring, and a modicum of plastic modesty. People in New Cross - and further- commenting and hoping to create policy on streets (and villages in some cases) in whioh they do not actualy live and under a banner of hyperlocalism - and lies.

An interest in preservation is one thing, but anonymous input for the hell of it is another. To comment on how others should live their lives carries with it a responsibilty. Instead, these persons move through threads like a parasitic virus killing off its host.

Beware.

Hyperlocal seems to me to mean 'big' naughty brother and sister - but without the parental control. (Perhaps that should be without the parent controlling his children. Man, it's a trust-fund riot.)

Nick, Master of all things SE4 and South East and so on, etc, in the great scheme of things, I'd rather stay little small me and so bow out. After all there's a brave old world out there.

Toodlepip.

Trumpet said...

Fogot to add, I reserve the right to come back.

Dont forget to respond to my last post.

Danja said...

Gosh is Trumpet your real name then?

Anonymous said...

I have been told by a neighbour that the plans for the garages at the top of Geoffrey road have been placed on hold because a property developer is trying to lease the land at the end of the gardens for housing. Surely this land belongs to the railway and it would be needed. Can they do this as i don't want anyone looking into my garden?

Anonymous said...

Forgot to say that the a part of the garage site to the right is to be used for access to the land.

Brockley Central Label Cloud