Mantle Road keeps it real

The new skip yard, in the middle, taken from the wrong side of the tracks but we had a train to catch

Score one for “real Brockley”. Instead of more flats, which would only have contained dreadful people wanting to use your trains and services and buy things you don’t like anyway, the new building being put up on Mantle Road is to be a skip yard. Better still, it’s using good honest materials like corrugated iron, it will be low rise and no-one could accuse it of contributing to our “dormitory” status.

Steel frame construction is well underway and completion should be pretty quick.

86 comments:

Anonymous said...

Is this a temporary thing for the construction of the flats next to it? I hope so!

Brockley Nick said...

Not to my knowledge no. It's going to be a skip yard.

Anonymous said...

Whats going on above the Broca Food Market - they seem to be building a whole new storey?

Brockley Nick said...

Yes, that's exactly what they're doing.

Anonymous said...

Wow, the "planning committee" in the council is really looking after Brockley!

biff bifferson said...

yes! skips rule. what is dormitory status?

Anonymous said...

On the plus side it looks like Nisa is opening pretty soon - signs are up and everything. It looks pretty good, nice and modern ... let's hope the service is good too!

Brockley Nick said...

@biff

'Dormitory' = Lots of houses. Little else. A place where you sleep, but you head elsewhere to work and play.

I agree that that dormitory development creates problems (people have to travel further for work, Council gets less income from business rates, fewer people around in the day to support high street businesses), but "dormitory" probably describes most of London and people sometimes mistakenly think that new housing = dormitory. New houses provide people that support a local service economy. Small flats (as opposed to large houses) encourage people to spend more locally: you're more likely to want to get out and about in local cafes and parks, more likely to use a launderette, etc, etc,

Anonymous said...

I like the new developments that include retail beneath them too - not the ones that are "just flats" ... it activates the street more...

biff bifferson said...

@Brockley nick, ah. our bits just like that. well there are no decent pubs anyway.

blugh said...

Yes, more green shoots for Brockley. What a load of bullsh*t!

Tamsin said...

Maybe, but if the flats are too small they are only of use to young dinkies (dual-income-no-kids-yet) who tend to socialise in town (as well as work there) and go away at weekends.

Lewisham doesn't even try to balance things at the development stage. When John Prescott issued his ukase to the London Boroughs to build however many thousand new homes - Lewisham picked this up and added more when producing their development strategy plan. Small business space, other than retail, in each development and one or two more business parks, like the one that used to be in Thurstan Road and the one tucked away between SLCHP and the Millwall Football Ground are what the Borough needs. It would then be a bit better cushioned against the public sector cuts.

Large houses = family/pets/commitment to the community. And "family houses" (which the council in theory ensures there is a certain proportion of) should mean that - not something that just complies with the square footage requirements but where there is not acutally space to park a buggy like they tried to build on the site of the Pepys Road garages.

Brockley Nick said...

@Tamsin

"Maybe, but if the flats are too small they are only of use to young dinkies (dual-income-no-kids-yet) who tend to socialise in town (as well as work there) and go away at weekends."

The people filling up Browns, The Orchard, Jam Circus, etc are primarily young singles or couples.

Anonymous said...

Yes that's because if you go in with a kid you're treated like a pariah.

Brockley Nick said...

No you're not.

I go in to all three of those all the time with my kids. Jam Circus specifically caters to parents and young children during the day and has a toy cupboard. The Orchard has run special events for kids in the past and is kid friendly. Browns are very nice to kids, although it's too small really to take young kids in there.

Anonymous said...

Bringing a kid in also proves you are having sex with another person, and are not one of the many w**kers who frequent these poseuries.

Anonymous said...

Anon: Maybe Brockley isn't the area for you?

Anonymous said...

ok so it's not exclusively singles or couples without kids that go to these places then.
I reckon a lot more would (space allowing) but the thing given a choice most couples with kids would like a house rather than a flat.

Anonymous said...

What better to enhance the infant village atmosphere that a light industrial yard.

Giovanni said...

I walked past the soon to be open Nisa local and I have to say that I've never heard of this company. Turns out they have a website and everything! I've heard of Tesco, Sainsbury's, Asda, Lidl and Aldi, but not Nisa. Tempting as it is to shop there, I have a very nice and friendly local shopperie opposite the launderette on Endwell Road which deserves our trade a lot more than another chain.

Slightly back to topic, does anyone know what is happening to the planning application for yet more dormitories on the corner of Mantle Road and Foxberry Street? On the site of that ghastly pub?

Crofty said...

I don't mind the skip yard - from a distance it looks a bit like the Roundhouse.

Dunno about the Mantle Rd flat planning process, but meanwhile Domino's Pizzas has been refused the permission they'd sought to take over the Old Bank restaurant in Honor Oak Park. Planners refused to give them change of use permission.

The reasons they gave were loss of amenity (ie the restaurant) and increased traffic and disturbance.

Aricana said...

@Nick

Thanks for the update. Seems like the wrong place to put a skip yard, especially with the new flats being built adjacent to this. It's already difficult enough to navigate between the parked cars, piles of fly tipped rubbish and waiting and turning vehicles on this side of Mantle Road. When the building works for the new flats are properly underway it will be even more chaotic!

It really is time to share news of the 2 new exciting developments ............

Anonymous said...

One of the people who work at the Orchard told me last week that there are couple of new places coming soon ... sounds interesting ...

Anonymous said...

Wasn't there a big skip yard there or very near there not that long ago? Maybe this is compensation from the planners to the skip people. It adds to the variety of the area, I don't want to see Brockley and Lewisham in-filled with blocks of cack like the development in Loampit Vale. We all need skips from time to time.

Brockley Nick said...

@Anon, yes I think it was previously used for the same purpose.

Brockley Nick said...

@Crofty - the building that looks like the Roundhouse is a retail and residential building. The skip place is in the foreground. Not a very helpful photo, sorry.

KennyTinsel said...

Bleeding gentrification. If it wasn't for everyone doing up their houses and flats, there'd be no need for a skip yard nearby.

In defence of Browns and The Orchard, and speaking as a breeder, they're incredibly child friendly.

KennyTinsel said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

I think it is temporary if this is the correct application

http://acolnet.lewisham.gov.uk/LEWIS-XSLPagesDC/acolnetcgi.exe?ACTION=UNWRAP&RIPNAME=Root.PgeResultDetail&TheSystemkey=49949

Brockley Nick said...

@Anon - that would be the application for the facility that is currently being replaced, which was a store yard and temporary offices.

Anonymous said...

This seems to be a bit of speculation? Does anyone actually know that this place was bought / leased and how long for? It could just be a temporary thing ...

Brockley Nick said...

It's not speculation. I spoke to the builders, who confirmed it.

When you say "temporary" I guess it may not be there forever, but it is a steel frame construction and I think you can assume it will be there for a number of years.

Anonymous said...

Good. There's enough awful blocks on Mantle Rd already.

kolp said...

A rather churlish intro to a story about a new business in the area.
Bars and delis are all good, but as locality and a economy variety is important.

Good luck to the new business does it have a name?

Anonymous said...

There goes the neighbourhood.

Anonymous said...

Useful as they are on rare occassions, Skip Hire isn't a business I can get particually excited about.

I'd have prefered a new batch of folk moving in to a shiny new development.

It'll be different when I'm in charge....

Brockley Nick said...

@Kolp - you've misunderstood, natch.

kolp said...

Yeah sure ;) You've got form on these issues!

Anonymous said...

When nick voices an opinion, it is always the correct one...

Anonymous said...

He's a bit like Christ if he came back and worked in PR..

Brockley Nick said...

Do not let your hearts be troubled. Trust in God; trust also in me.

Anonymous said...

OI! Jesus is MY co-pilot

Anonymous said...

I do hope all those flats have double glazing to keep the noise at bay.

Who would want to live next to a yard with lorries ferrying skips in and out all day?

Maybe the flats are going cheap.

Dot Cotton said...

'Ere Nick thou shall not take the Lord's name in vain or verily ye shall be smote. John 3 chapter 4.

drakefell debaser said...

Unbelievable, I don't think you could get a more inappropriate business for that site. Tesco's or whoever pulled out of the lower floor of Jude CRT due to concerns of being able to deliver stock, yet here we are with plans to have skip lorries next door. I feel for the residents on St Asaph rd as it will be the only way in and out for the lorries.

I only hope it is temporary until someone can develop the land properly and build housing.

MalB said...

@drakefell debaser.

On that basis, presumably one could hope for the railway line to close down (and be turned into flats) on the grounds that developers have built blocks of flats next to the noisy, busy railway?

The site was already in use for industrial purposes before the flats were built. History is on the side of the owners here. If anything, it is the flats which are in an inappropriate site - but anybody buying them will know what they are letting themselves in for and the price, presumably, reflects that.

Broadly speaking, planning law allows people to continue using their land for similar purposes as it had previously used (within the relevant Class Use). There are other laws to deal with noise issues etc.

If the level of lorry traffic is higher than what it was before - then I would agree the residents of St Asaphs Rd might feel hard done by. I can very much sympathise with that. I feel the same about the large number of huge doubledecker buses that now come up and down Avignon/Pepys/Jerningham Roads.

Noise from inappropriate skip movements is something the Council might be able to address with Highways if it gets out of hand. Although (fortunately or unfortunately depending on your viewpoint) the public generally have a right to use public roads how they will!

Anonymous said...

As said before, since th eELL line this place has been going downhill. Thanks once more for the Council for being so supportive to the local residents, the skip yard was really necessary.

Danja said...

From a purely selfish point of view, I don't miss the scaffolding lorries, and I guess the skip lorries will use the same routes at the same speeds.

It isn't clear whether the previous skip lorry use is that in the earlier application posted above: if so that was very limited by condition for supporting the Brockley PFI. Nor do I know whether that was implemented.

But anyway, there are two issues, building and use. The earlier permission is not going to validate this use unless it is for the Brockley PFI. If not, any earlier use for skips will have been superseded by that pp, or else lost by cessation of use.

The building doesn't seem to have pp at all, unless acolnet is missing something.

Brockley Nick said...

"As said before, since th eELL line this place has been going downhill. Thanks once more for the Council for being so supportive to the local residents, the skip yard was really necessary."

Presenting the fact that a bit of railway embankment is being used for one type of light industrial use rather than another as evidence to support your theory is daft for reasons too numerous to list now, because I have just come back from Brockley Market (post-ELL innovation) and I'm off to the Hilly Fields ice skating (post-ELL innovation). Have a lovely day.

Anonymous said...

The markets rubbish and it's not proper ice skating.

Osh said...

@Anonymous

Durrr...

Anonymous said...

Most people in Brockley are more likely to need a skip than a deli counter in their lives, so it's staying, OK?

drakefell debaser said...

MalB, no, not quite. I'm not sure I understand your comparison to the railway, but they are usually permanent features so you know where you stand if you decide to live adjacent to one.

Mantle Rd may have been light industrial in the past. It was probably agricultural before that, things change and I personally think a skip yard is at odds situated in between two residential developments(one yet to be built), and opposite a primary school.

And I'm not completely against light industrial, I bought a home backing on to Martins Yard when it was an active scaffolding yard, but I am disappointed that there will not be a development to continue the ground floor retail space offered by Jude Crt, and that more lorries are going to be trundling around my neighborhood.

Brockley Nick said...

@Anon - I have no strong feelings about this development, but you misrepresent how skips and town planning both work.

You don't need to be able to pick up a skip around the corner from your home, they get delivered to your house. And you don't locate things on the basis of how common the requirement is. We all need water, but you don't stick a reservoir in the middle of Brockley.

Also, you seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that skips are the friend of the common man, whereas food shops are for the elite. They aren't. The well-off, who own their own houses and can afford home improvements are far more likely to use skips.

drakefell debaser said...

Most people in Brockley are more likely to need a skip than a deli counter in their lives, so it's staying, OK?

Reminds me of the factoid I heard that suggested that most people who post cobblers anonymously on internet forums are middle aged men who still live with their mums.

Anonymous said...

Surely the skips were there first. Everyone is anonymous.

MalB said...

@Brockley Nick: You say: "We all need water, but you don't stick a reservoir in the middle of Brockley" as if this was some valid point.

A reservoir has been stuck just over the borders in Nunhead (a huge one) and there used to be on on Telegraph Hill as well until the new ring main was put in. It is pure chance that there was a reservoir in Nunhead and not in Brockey - just as it was pure chance there was an industrial estate by Brockley and Brockley Road stations and not by Nunhead Station.

Both the reservoir and the industrial estate are contemporary with the oldest Victorian developments on the hill and much older than the new build developments.

MalB said...

Drakefell debaser:

When you say: "Mantle Rd may have been light industrial in the past. It was probably agricultural before that .." you have got my point about the railways although you might not realise it.

The industrial use of Mantle Road comes from the early days of the railway. The railway lines were agricultural before that too.

The industrial use of Mantle Road has exactly as much validity, historical and current day, as the railways.

Brockley Nick said...

Oh Malcom...

It was just an example. If you'd like to suggest a suitable location for a reservoir in the centre of Brockley, please go ahead.

If you prefer some other examples: we all need electricity, but you don't stick a coal fired power station in the middle of Brockley.

We all need food, but we don't convert the whole of Brockley to arable land (and yes, I know the area was once used for food production, but our means and needs are somewhat different, hundreds of years on).

You might want to come back with some bit of pedantry about solar cells in Telegraph Hill or fruit trees in Hilly Fields, but the point stands: The fact that we "need skips" does not mean we need to put a skip depot in the middle of Brockley.

Like I say, I don't care greatly either way, but a ridiculous argument needs to be called out.

Tamsin said...

But Lewisham needs variety and although the common man might not need skips some might be happier working locally in a skip yard and its office rather than in another coffee shop or deli, so the Council should not allow a change of use from Light Industrial to retail or residential.

People who buy next or near to such a site know (or should know) the implications.

And what's with the school point? Skip lorries go more slowly than cars, are more visible than motor bikes (so it can hardly constitute more danger than there is already) and a playground at break time is more of a noise nuisance for the neighbours than a light industrial unit any day.

local said...

How noisy is a skip yard? I live nearby and am genuinely concerned about this? Also, is it to late to make any appeal to the council about it? I assume so.

Danja said...

The notion that skip lorries are driven around like some some granny in a Micra on a Sunday drive is hilarious. You do realise they are going to be hammering down Jerningham?

I doubt it is too late, Anon, from what is publicly accessible on Lewisham's planning service, the building they are erecting has no planning permission, and nor (as far as I can see) does the proposed use.

Danja said...

Sorry, Local, not Anon.

Tamsin said...

I think Nick said earlier that it was the same use as before - and unless you work from home you should not be affected because it is likely that there are restrictions on the hours of operation.

A primary school is noisier.

Are the council being deliberately obstructive in not having their planning applications section searchable by post-code? Or am I missing a trick somewhere, and it is.

Tamsin said...

@ Danja What's the odds when we've already got the 343 buses and are also accustomed to the scaffolding lorries that used to operate in Martin's Yard.

But do tell me more about how to search the planning section other than by date or by the number if you already know it.

Brockley Nick said...

@Tamsin

"But Lewisham needs variety"

'Variety is the spice of life' eh Tamsin? A handily catch-all argument that could be used to justify anything. That's a line I shall remember, next time you and Malcome are campaigning against the wrong kind of bus or an inappropriate loft extension or moaning about the Shard.

"some might be happier working locally in a skip yard and its office rather than in another coffee shop or deli,"

Well the deli or the coffee shop is a straw man, since only the pro-skip anon has suggested this as the alternative. But the jobs argument is weak anyway, because the number of jobs created by this will be minimal compared with the number that would be created by equivalent retail or office space.

"And what's with the school point? Skip lorries go more slowly than cars, are more visible than motor bikes (so it can hardly constitute more danger than there is already) and a playground at break time is more of a noise nuisance for the neighbours than a light industrial unit any day."

This is risible stuff, as Danja has already pointed out.

Malcom and your arguments seem to boil down to "if we've got to have buses on our street, other people can jolly well put up with skip lorries."

Tamsin said...

No, it's the bigger picture. There used to be a greater mix of employment opportunities in Lewisham, Pearce signs where Goldsmiths now is, a coca-cola bottling plant on the retail park that is now Matalan to name but two. Now the majority work in the public sector and the biggest single employer is, I believe, the Council - or maybe now it is the Council and it outsourced providers.

I accept things change - we're no longer growing rhubarb in night soil in Brockley or grazing cattle on Telegraph Hill - but there is no need to hasten it, or for the council to become totally complicit in this process by upping the amount of new housing they undertake to provide and by failing to make developers provide a reasonable balance - of social and private housing and of residential and commercial. They flacidly accept the argument that in these hard times the developers can't afford anything less than the most profitable residential provision.

And both you and Danja seem to have missed the point. I wasn't saying that skip lorry drivers went particularly slowly or were the last word in considerate motoring, but that being big and obvious they are surely of less danger to school children than cars or, particulary, motorbikes that can sometimes seem to appear out of nowhere.

Danja said...

HGVs cannot brake in the same way that cars can, so I don't think that point is as unreasonable as you are painting it. And please ask any cyclist about how well skip lorries are often driven (or observe a bit more closely).

There were constant complaints from Jerningham Road about the scaffold lorries (understandably), so saying you are (or were) used to it is interesting.

You can search acolnet by location - road name seems to work reliably. As does narrowing it by number if the examples I've tried are representative.

Brockley Nick said...

@Tamsin

I actually agree that having a variety of types of local jobs is beneficial (although total number of jobs is far more important), but that's not an argument for locating a skip yard in that spot.

And I think we both understood the point you were trying to make about lorries, but you seem to be pulling it out of your arse, with no stats to back up the idea that lorries are safer than cars or bikes (never mind the particulates from the lorries). Makes you wonder why every primary school isn't located next to a lorry park: It could save hundreds of young lives a year!

drakefell debaser said...

The industrial use of Mantle Road has exactly as much validity, historical and current day, as the railways.

MalB, I’m not questioning the industrial validity of Mantle Rd. If the area has moved from agricultural to industrial in the past then there is no reason why it can’t move again into mixed residential and retail. This is the path it has followed for some time now – the only thing remotely resembling light industrial until now is the small builders yard in between the flattened Maypole and school.

Tamsin, why do you automatically jump to the conclusion that any new retail space will become a deli? In the spirit of diversity I gather you would have been absolutely fine with that site on Jerningham Rd becoming a skip yard? It was after all a reservoir before which gives it the industrial history and validity required, and the common man on Jerningham would surely hanker after a job there?

It is such a shame the council allowed a change of use! Or not given the proximity to one’s own home?

Danja said...

I'd expect it to be pretty noisy, Local, having lived in a flat next to a warehouse. Waking to loud engine noise and reversing beeping at 6.00am was a regular joy.

Add clanking and banging of skips as they pick the right number off the stacks and come back to unload the old ones*, and I wouldn't want to live next to it. They start early too (the company I use nearly always deliver before 7.00am).

*I am - perhaps wrongly - assuming that given they are building a building, it is not just intended to be a park but rather a waste transfer station - skip storage doesn't need a building.

Anonymous said...

Can anyone actually find the planning application for this skip yard? I can't find it on the council website and have never seen a notice pinned up outside the site.

Tamsin said...

OK - I'm coming out with my hands up - stop shooting.

Delis - was picked up from someone else's post - no, of course every retail isn't a deli - and a varied retail hub on the West side would be a good idea.

Good point about braking distance - shift my ground to acknowledge that cars/motorbikes and skip lorries (which are quite small in the lorry stakes) are about equal hazard. One being more visible to the child/parent combo. and the other nippier at stopping when/if they see you.

Excellent point about the reversing beep-beep-beep - the worst type of noise to cope with as a neighbour.

However, in a residential area wouldn't the council be justified in imposing the usual restrictions - 8 to 6pm weekdays, 8 to 1pm Saturdays and never on a Sunday (a Sunday, a Sunday). Which might actually make the business unviable if they have to deliver by 7am.

It's tricky but there is a distinction between complaints that Malcolm might have channelled/publicised on behalf of the THS as received by residents and personal issues. We've personal issues with speeding (by anyone - car, bus or lorry) up and down Jerningham Road and the size and so vibration (not noise) caused by the buses - I didn't have personal issues about the existence of the scaffold lorries.

And to stay on Jerningham since you've turned things personal and raised it, we fought long, and very hard (gratifying, though when they wheel in a QC to answer your points) to keep the reservoir as green space and (my personal opinion) I think I would as a matter of principle but not aesthetics prefer light industrial to very expensive private housing that's now there. But then I don't live opposite to have my life and property value blighted by such a marked change of use and should probably keep my principles to myself anyway.

But to go back to Mantle Road, didn't Nick say it was a skip yard before and so change of use is not in issue here?

Anonymous said...

Historically (I know thats a rude word to many readers of BC) this area was a mix of houses and light industrial, as was much of London, from Belgravia and Knightsbridge to East Ham. If its just houses and small shops its that other rude word, a dormitory.

Danja said...

But to go back to Mantle Road, didn't Nick say it was a skip yard before and so change of use is not in issue here?

Not necessarily, no.

MalB said...

Nick: Your examples are failing a bit. "If you prefer some other examples: we all need electricity, but you don't stick a coal fired power station in the middle of Brockley."

Well actually we have one in Greenwich. So there isn't much need for one in Brockley as well. Brockley missed out on the reservoir and the power station: but at least it has a skip yard.

Presumably the owners think it is a good site for one, otherwise it wouldn't be there. I don't see that you can question their commercial expertise until they go bust and you certainly can't use the examples of reservoirs and power stations to support the case that the skip yard should be somewhere else. Greenwich? Nunhead?

MalB said...

Drakefell debaser. You say you are "not questioning the industrial validity of Mantle Rd."

But isn't that exactly where you started when you said "Unbelievable, I don't think you could get a more inappropriate business for that site."

If that wasn't questioning the validity of having industrial use on the existing industrial site, then I apologise. But it really reads that way.

Danja said...

The Greenwich power station does not power the grid, so has no bearing on whether it would be a good idea to have a power station in Brockley to supply electricity to local households.

You also appear to be incapable of distinguishing between light industrial usages, but fortunately the planning system is more sophisticated than that.

Anonymous said...

I want my electricity fresh, organic and locally-sourced. (Joke, by the way...)

MalB said...

Danja: "The Greenwich power station does not power the grid, so has no bearing on whether it would be a good idea to have a power station in Brockley to supply electricity to local households."

I know. However one power station looks like another. So the point stands as far as Nick's objection goes.

Don't understand the relevance of your last comment since I was only replying to Nick's examples. There's not a lot of difference between a skip yard and a coal yard, which was the comparision I made.

Westsider said...

@Mal - yeah, right, there is no difference between a small skip yard and a coal fired power station. And the fact that someone once built a power station by the river in Greenwich is a great reason why one in Brockley town centre would be perfectly fine. This is clown-talk of the highest order.

Don't you have some kind of role in TH planning decisions? God help us all!

Anonymous said...

so it's gong to be a rubbish tip?

NAT said...

A rubbish tip where there will be different rubbish every day as its farmed out to other end users. Amounts to the same thing for its near neighbours, Anon

local said...

@Tamsin & Danja, I do actually work from home and also have a young family who tend not to wake up much before 8am so am very concerned about this new business near my house. Couple of questions (Nick?):

1. As the previous use also a skip yard as some people here are suggesting? I didn't think so - it seemed like offices mostly. If it was already a skip yard I won't worry as I've not heard it in the past.

2. Is there a planning application for this, and if so, has the appeal process closed? Where did you get this information and can we find out anymore? I would assume they would be hauling skips in and out at 6am and it would be quite noisy, but I'd be happy to be told otherwise. If there's no planning application, perhaps there is some other council body who could be talked to?

Someone made the point that, "it's noisy anyway since it's by a train track", but people who bought houses nearby any time in the last 100 years knew about the train line and weighed up the pros and cons when moving in. In our case we are not bothered by the train noise, although it is perfectly audible in the garden.

In terms of economics it will only bring a tiny number of jobs (compared to the area of the site and almost any other use) and is of minimal economic value to Brockley.

Many thanks in advance for any answers!

local said...

Duh - 1. as = was

drakefell debaser said...

MalB, I am afraid I no longer follow your argument. I have stated that I think that a skip yard is inappropriate and laid out my reasons why I hold that view.

I am not questioning the rite of industrial passage the area may have once had, but I am questioning the people that plan and shape the areas in which we live, who think a skip yard is compatible with the surrounding area as it is today.

By the way, the land previously had a double story porta cabin on it which was used as an office block. The closest thing resembling industry probably occurred when someone printed a sizable document on A4 paper and stapled it with one of those long arm heavy duty staplers.

Brockley Central Label Cloud