Crofton Park supermarket plans rejected

On the Brockley forum, Anna reports that controversial plans to develop a building suitable for a supermarket in Crofton Park have been rejected by the Council. The Brockley Road building has already been demolished, as planning permission existed for an earlier scheme.

42 comments:

Tressilliana said...

Good.

Anonymous said...

Can we have a decent supermarket in Brockley Cross instead? :-)

Anonymous said...

Nick - as i understand it there was never planning permission for a previous scheme. There was permission to refurbish the previous building which would not have been suitable for a supermarket. Then the building fell down of it's own accord and the developer immeadiately put in a detailed application that was to be funded by a large chain.

Now there will probably be a long drawn out affair with the appeals process while we are left with a huge hole in the ground.

The Developer should be made to reinsatate the building to it's original state.

Anonymous said...

I understand that the Chemist's next door now doesn't have a wall on the side as a result.

Anonymous said...

What we need is a massive betting shop.

Anonymous said...

or a betting shop and a dirty chicken store - we need more of those

Anonymous said...

Anonymous,
organic shop in Brockley; Sainsbury 20 min walk over the hill; 2 smaller supermarkets short walk to Crofton park; new Saturday market Lewisham Way; Deptford market 3 times a week;
and Lewisham town Centre. Take a walk and see!

Anonymous said...

Exactly - can we have a supermarket in Brockley Cross please? :-)

D said...

Who is going to walk 20 minutes over a hill to do their shopping and have to walk 20 minutes home again carrying a load of shopping bags?

FizzA said...

I think there might be a supermarket appearing in the bottom of that new block of flats by the station, Mantle road. Thats pretty much Brockley Cross, isnt it?

Anonymous said...

The new shop is a Nisa - I'm still holding out for a Sainsbury's or Waitrose (I wish)

Matt-Z said...

The building fell down of its own accord? Surely it was 'encouraged' by the wreckers' ball.

Tressilliana said...

'Who is going to walk 20 minutes over a hill to do their shopping and have to walk 20 minutes home again carrying a load of shopping bags?'

Not an insoluble problem.

(a) Get a shopping trolley.

(b) Investigate bus routes.

(c) Get a cab.

(d) If none of the above are practical, do your shopping online.

Crofton Park Surveyor said...

"The Developer should be made to reinsatate the building to it's original state."

Just playing devils advocate but in broad terms, unless its in a conservation area or listed (which I dont think it is), the developer has every right to demolish a building and leave a great big hole in the ground. It is a technique oft used to help persuade councils to grant planning permission - Fewer people object to planning applications if the alternative is a great big hole in the ground.

If the building is left in an unsafe manner then that is a different matter and the owner can be made to make it safe... or knock it down ;-(

Flabbyboy said...

The building that was there was effing ugly so tbh the hole the ground is more attractive. Return the land to agricultural I say and lets start bailing hay in Crofton Park again!

Dan said...

@ Tressilliana you missed:

Overground to Tesco (Surrey Quays).

People always forget it's there!

Crofty said...

Just for the record, here's an excerpt from the official minutes of the public meeting on this a month or so ago, in which planning officer Steve Isaacson explains what happened with the demolition:

"Steve Isaacson (SI) gave an overview of the planning history, including comment on the recent demolition of the building. Whilst not 'illegal' in the criminal sense, a formal notice of demolition should have been served on the Council and this did not appear to have been done. As a result, the demolition is not likely to result in any legal action by the Council. The grant of planning permission in January 2009 for the "alteration, extension and reconfiguration of the existing commercial units and flats at 437-439 Brockley Road" is now of no consequence, as the buildings have ceased to exist."

And the official reasons for the refusal of permission, which was four a four-storey building with nine flats and the retail unit downstairs, were:

1: "The proposed development by reason of its excessive bulk and scale, poor
urban design and mix of commercial and residential floorspace would result
in an overdevelopment of the site."

2: "The proposed development, by reason of its bulk, scale, design and close
proximity of the buildings to adjoining residential properties would be out of
keeping with the street scene and visually detrimental to the amenities of
the adjoining residential property."

3: "The Applicant has failed to demonstrate how the proposal would respond to
the ‘lean, clean, green’ principles contained within the London Plan.
Insufficient information has been submitted in respect of efficient use of
water, energy or resources and it has not been indicated that the proposal
could meet Code for Sustainable Homes Standards."

4: "The applicant has not demonstrated that the proposed retail unit can be
adequately serviced without either significant impact on adjoining residents,
highway safety or bus service provision."

Matt-Z said...

@Flabbyboy.

The building that was there, and is in fact still partly there, was one of a pair of 1950s low rise blocks with retail a ground level and flats above. Whilst not architecturally stunning they were in a common post-war style, inoffensive and worked as the entrance to the similarly-aged Sevenoaks estate. Admittedly the double glazing outlet which used the ground floor was ugly and scruffy.

As cited above the proposed replacement was deemed unsuitable, oversized, and wrong for the site. If anything it would have made the vista worse - a lopsided building which doesn't blend in with or compliment its neighbours.

With one half demolished and no likelihood of a replacement any time soon we are worse off. I can't see a haywain making an appearance, but it's now a prime site for fly tipping.

Crofton Park Planner said...

Demolition of residential properties (i.e the first floor flats) does require planning permission unless permission to demolish has been granted elsewhere which it has not.

Lewisham could take a harder stance if they so wished as where demolition has commenced without pre-notification an offence has been committed (Section 80 Building Act 1984)and this could result in a conviction in the Magistrates Court. Think Lewsiham could get a fine of circa £2,500 from them with very little effort which could fund school kids to decorate the hordings or something!

Danja said...

Not a planner and my planning law is increasingly rusty, but is it not excluded demolition? Sch 2 Part 31 A.3(a) simply requires a pp, not one which approves of demolition.

I guess that may have been tested and purposively interpreted in the courts, though.

Charlie said...

The developer was after big money. 9 flats, 4 storey's and a shop. Kerching!

Crofton Park Surveyor said...

Hmm... I am also not a planner but I was under the impression that you were oblidged to give notice to demolish but that was under the building act not town and country planning act - i.e. its not a planning matter but more one of safety and practicalities. Demolishing did mean that the previous planning permission was revoked but that would have happened even if they had served a demolition notice.

Also - how do we know that they didn't serve a demolition notice?

Barbara said...

Crofton Park Surveyor, because the Council says they didn't (it's in the minutes above).

Crofton Park Surveyor said...

I stand corrected - it appears that is a planning requirement to give the notice.

In a Kafka-esque system you don't usually need planning permission to do the demolition but you need to give notice so that the council can review the details before advising you that you dont need their permission.

Some recent rulings mean that some bigger demolitions may constitute developments and thus need planning permission but I doubt this would apply to the tesco...

Crofton Park Surveyor said...

Well spotted Barbara. Its been a long day.

Crofton Park Planner said...

I'm rusty on this too it seems...the ruling this year to which Crofton Park Surveyor refers quashed any distinction between development types (under DoE Circular 10/95) and all demolition is therefore now subject to Danja's Sch 2 Part 31 A.3(a).

If for arguments sake case law supports the proposition that they have not undertaken demolition as part of the implimentation of a planning permission because this was for an extension only then a prior notice application should have been made. It wasn't, and Lewisham Planning recognise it makes little difference to the outcome.

The Building Act 1980 is a completly different matter and not something that Lewisham Planning proberly considered. Complaints under that should be directed to Lewishm Building Control.

Anonymous said...

A Sains in the cross would really improve the area , they could buy/lease all the units and convert them into a supermarket, there'a rather handsome one in Muswell hill

Anonymous said...

D said: Who is going to walk 20 minutes over a hill to do their shopping and have to walk 20 minutes home again carrying a load of shopping bags?

That is the purpose of the car. Sainsbury's has a large car park. Drive. That's what everybody else does, even if they live 5 minutes walk away on the same side of the hill.

TheOracle said...

The planning applicant

In the High Court Royal Courts of Justice No 7047 of 2011 The Black Ant Company Limited (Company Number 03400474) Nature of Business: Other business related activities (formerly Readydogma Limited) Address of Registered Office: Jute House, 1 Valmar Works, 1 Camberwell, London, SE5 9NW Principal Trading Address: Jute House, 1 Valmar Works, 1 Camberwell, London, SE5 9NW Date of Appointment: 15 August 2011 Administrators' Names and Address: Simon Thomas and Robert Pick (IP Nos 8920 and 8745), both of Moorfields Corporate Recovery LLP, 88 Wood Street, London, EC2V 7QF.

Anonymous said...

This is zone 2 London, not everyone drives here!

Anonymous said...

"This is zone 2 London, not everyone drives here!"

No, but speedicars does a pretty good job in these sort of situations. Catch the bus there, do your shopping, and when you're at the checkouts, give em a ring and by the time you're packed up and outside, your car will be there to drive you and your shopping home.

It's never cost me more than five quid - which (if like me you do one big shop a month) - isn't actually that much, and probably a lot cheaper than the tax/insurance/fuel that you would pay to maintain a car for the same purpose.

Brockley Nick said...

Or we could have supermarkets on the high street, so we don't all need to drive or get cabs and don't need to devote large swathes of our neighbourhoods to car parks. And while people are shopping on the high street, they might pop in to other shops at the same time, rather than just going from home to supermarket and back again, never interacting with the rest of the community.

Just a thought.

Anonymous said...

Agreed!

Tamsin said...

Or the trains - if you commute anyway no extra charge. NXG Sainsbury's one stop from Brockley and for Crofton Park there's Dog Kennel Hill just round the corner, about 600 yards from Denmark Hill.

kolp said...

But it's not really "OR" with the supermarkets, it's more "AND".

On the high street every 500 yards (see how Tesco operates in Lewisham) and have massive shops too.

It's not a good idea for a few companies to have such dominance.

Crofty said...

Crofton Park already has Co-op and Budgens plus a butcher - I've lived here for ages and have never had to go elsewhere for a supermarket. Extra-nice fruit and veg and seafood used to mean a mosey across Nunhead Cemetery to the fruit shop on a Saturday morning, now I mosey to the market instead. No car or even bus required!

Anonymous said...

Yeah - Brockley Cross could do with being a little more like Crofton Park - a couple more supermarkets would help in our area (as well as the other lovely places, of course).

Budget conscious said...

I like the new Lidl on Lee High Road

Budget conscious said...

I like the new Lidl on Lee High Road

aero-static said...

Just returning to the topic, I believe that, in the process of demolishing the building, the developer also tore up some council owned paving, destroyed and removed a healthy tree and blocked access to the driveway to the rear of the property.

Not exactly endearing behaviour.

Thaisdel said...

Thank god it's been rejected. Tesco supermarkets are EVIL.

If anything we could do with a Waitrose for weekly shopping (obviously followed by Brockley Market weekend shopping too!)

Westsider said...

Is this a parody?

Brockley Central Label Cloud