New plans for 437-439 Brockley Road submitted

Developers have submitted new plans to redevelop 437-439 Brockley Road (opposite the Brockley Jack). The plans are for:

The construction of a part two / part three / part four-storey building on the site of 437-439 Brockley Road SE4, incorporating balconies and terraces, comprising a food retail store (Class A1) and an office (Class B1) on the ground floor and 5, one-bedroom and 4, two-bedroom self-contained flats on the upper floors, together with the provision of 12 bicycle spaces, bin storage and associated landscaping.

As the documents acknowledge, this plan is little changed from the original plans that were rejected last year, with the exception that the majority of the ground floor will be used as one single food retail outlet, mre amenity space is created for the flat occupants, there are some revised flat layouts to the rear of the site and there are minor amendments to flat layouts to meet the requirements for Lifetime Homes and Code 4 of the Code for Sustainable Homes.

It does not address opponents' objections that the building will have an overbearing presence on Brockley Road, but while BC's not keen on the way it juts out in to the pavement, it seems pretty inoffensive to us. The potential impact of the supermarket on local parking will need to be carefully considered.

In May, we reported claims that the site had been acquired by Tesco. These plans require an 8m loading bay.

With thanks to Anna.

42 comments:

Anonymous said...

Looks similar in its 'angularity' to the block, also housing a Tesco on it's ground level, opposite the snooker hall (near Ladywell Swimming baths). Although that one is taller - but it is very, very ugly - and although it's been completed for a couple of years flats in it are still being advertised for sale.

Anonymous said...

They are simply trying to bulldoze the application through. There's no sense the developer has taken on board the concerns raised by the public: lots of one bedroom flats when the Borough needs family homes; lots of increase traffic/parking on a cycle lane; not in keeping with the surrounding area....

Anonymous said...

Waitrose please!

Brockley Nick said...

I don't imagine Tesco would be too keen to accommodate a Waitrose, even if Waitrose were to choose Crofton Park as their launch pad to "break the South East of London".

Fattyfattybumbum said...

Looks good, better than whats there at the moment anyway.

Speaking of shops, is there a new Nisa somewhere in Brockers apart from the one by the station?

Anonymous said...

Lady Progress marches into Crofton Park.

kolp said...

Yes there is a new Nisa, called Nisa Today it's on the same parade as Broca Food Market.

Anonymous said...

It is far too big for the site it is on. Disregarding the shop, the tower thats juts out is massive and out of keeping with the road.

can we stop commenting on the tesco and first get a building that is suitable.

Brockley Nick said...

@Kolp - that's not new, it's been there for ages.

Anonymous said...

I thought there was a newer Nisa that wasn't the one in Haynes Park or have I got my wires crossed?

kolp said...

really...well on that point I stand corrected.

As for this building& Tesco, :(

Anonymous said...

Would be great to have a Tesco I think- it's time be put decent grub back on Brockley tables.

kolp said...

Qualification: Obviously homes and jobs which this development represents are good and much needed things. My issue is that both those things could be acheived with more aplomb that whats on offer with this development.

There are huge question marks on whether another mini supermarket is needed in that area. But the market will decide...

Anonymous said...

There is already enough space in the Brockley market for dozens of crappy fag and booze corner shops so presumably there will be enough room for somewhere decent.

Anonymous said...

I'm a fan of the local corner shops - everything you need in a hurry, under one roof.

Crofty said...

They say in the application that the potential traffic issues caused by deliveries are irrelevant because the previous business had delivery trucks too. Not mentioning that the windows business had not built over the full site, giving them space to park their vans on their own property instead of the public street. Can't believe how miffed they are in their tone about the previous application being refused! God they're doing everything they can to aggravate locals...

Anonymous said...

A Co-Op, a Budgens and now a Tesco! Crofton Park's cup is certainly overflowing with corporate and franchise retail opportunities.

The building looks suitably hideous, in stark contrast to the Victorian style of the shopping street.

I expect it will be railroaded through the planning process in the usual manner.

I expect it will make a pretty penny for some developer.

Supermarkets or tiny flats seem to be the way.

Anonymous said...

Jay's Budgens franchise would, I guess, be directly under threat. I have lived in all sorts of bits of South London, but his is about the friendliest and best kept shop around. Booo to Tescos.

MalB said...

Most of this discussion, except for @kolp, seems to centre around the use of the shop. That's a minor factor - it can change within a year. Once the building is built that is there for a good 25 years: so the nature of the building and its appearance is far more important than what the shop sells. Let's concentrate on that.

My view (worth little I appreciate) is that the building is too large and over dominating. The style is inappropriate and the materials wrong for the area.

As for the flats - although the issue is market led - I find it difficult to see the need for yet more tiny flats. The only advantage of them is that, if they soak up the demand for such things, they might reduce number of remaining reasonably sized houses from being converted into small, poor quality flats, leaving some family sized accommodation in the area. That has to be a plus.

But, for me, the building itself is horrible and a further blot on Brockley. If developers must develop this sort of thing, why can't they do it around Lewisham or Deptford Bridge stations where it at least has some chance of blending in?

Andy said...

Have to say personally that I'm keen for the Tesco, would be very happy to have it. Having said that I am worried about the building height which would stick up a fair way above the current height of all the surrounding buildings. The houses around there are all uniform heoght, I can see this from my window and I do worry the above design would stick out like the proverbial sore thumb.

Anonymous said...

Absolutely awful!!!


Really ugly!!!

Oh dear!

Anonymous said...

So Ugly!

Anonymous said...

Ugly building. I'm all for architectural progress but it needs to be tasteful and appropriate. We don't need a Tesco - Jay's (Budgens) is brilliant...

Anonymous said...

tescos would be great! not only would it create local jobs not only in the build and running of the store it will provide accessable affordable food for the area buging may be good but is over priced and does not offer all that one may need . it also allows the large population of elderly to shop close to home again with ffordable goods without the sruggle of using buses and waitng for dial a ride Yay Tescos

Barbara said...

From my experience, small Tescos are definitely not cheap! But yes, I'm amazed the developer has not modified the plans for the building which upset so many people in the last application. In fact maybe they;re hoping the Tesco issue will make people object to the retail use, which the council cannot influence once it has okayed the size of the shop, rather than the building issues, which the council does have some power over. The fact that it completely changes the frontage of that whole strip because it juts out so much, and that its height is so out of keeping with the rest of the strip and the houses behind is the biggest issue for me. The owners of the Jam Circus who're the developers should be ashamed of themselves.

Anonymous said...

The perviousapplication was refused for four reasons (see below). This new application only seems to address the last one (servicing the new supermarket) so I don't see how it could ever be approved? Is this just a process of iteration with the developer willing to keep resubmitting in the hope the council finally gives in?

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, contrary to Policies 3.5, 7.1, 7.4, 7.5 & 7.6 in The London Plan (July 2011); Core Strategy Objective 10: Protect & Enhance Lewisham's Character & Core Strategy Policy 15: High Quality Design for Lewisham of the Local Development Framework - Core Strategy (June 2011) and saved policies URB 3 Urban Design, HSG 4 Residential Amenity, HSG 5 Layout and Design of New Residential Development, HSG 7 Gardens and HSG 8 Backland and Infill Development in the Council's adopted Unitary Development Plan (July 2004) and Chapters 2 & 3 of the Residential Development Standards SPD (August 2006).
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 at 1 Sevenoaks Road and the street scene in Sevenoaks Road, contrary to Policies 3.5, 7.1, 7.4, 7.5 & 7.6 in The London Plan (July 2011); Core Strategy Objective 10: Protect & Enhance Lewisham's Character & Core Strategy Policy 15: High Quality Design for Lewisham of the Local Development Framework - Core Strategy (June 2011) and saved policies URB 3 Urban Design, HSG 4 Residential Amenity, HSG 5 Layout and Design of New Residential Development & HSG 8 Backland and Infill Development in the adopted Unitary Development Plan 2004 and the Residential Standards Supplementary Planning Document (August 2006).
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. Consequently the proposal does not represent a sustainable form of development, contrary to Policies 5.1 Climate Change Mitigation, 5.3 Sustainable Design and Construction, 5.6 Decentralised Energy in Development Proposals, 5.7 Renewable Energy & 5.15 Water Use & Supplies of the London Plan (July 2011) and Policy 7: Climate Change and Adapting to the Effects & Policy 8: Sustainable Design and Construction and Energy Efficiency of the Local Development Framework - Core Strategy (June 2011).
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 and therefore the proposal is contrary to policies Policy 6.3 Assessing Effects of Development on Transport Capacity, 6.9 Cycling, Policy 6.10 Walking & Policy 6.13 Parking of The London Plan (July 2011); and Objective 9: Transport & Accessibility & Policy 14: Sustainable Movement and Transport of the Local Development Framework - Core Strategy (June 2011).

Anonymous said...

Terrible!

Anonymous said...

I wonder what is going on here?

A regular developer would have produced something rather like the Co-op or Budgens which modify the ground floor, but keep the upper floors intact.

The approach taken here seems to have been to demolish and create a modern design that maximises the return by cramming in lots of small flats.

This seems to be new direction for Antic who have hitherto concentrated on tarting up failing pubs.

They were quite good at that. So why do this, I wonder? More money in micro-flats? But why the ugly new building? An architects career piece?

I agree, the supermarket issue is probably a diversion.

barryls said...

Far too big for the site, but can we expect Lewisham Council to do anything about it?

Anonymous said...

there is no point complaining about Tesco. like it or not the council are not there to rule on whether Tesco should be allowed to come or if there should be a different retailer - it is a private enterprise and the council are there to try and keep the development in the realms of what is reasonable.

The developmennt will go through in some shape or form, the thing to concentrate on - if it bothers you - is the building and whether you are happy for it to be built as it is currently presented.

personally, i don't like it, it is too big and dominates the street. it will be visible from the cross road at HOP and if allowed it will set precedent and open the door for further large developments on that strip.

it should be scaled back and in line with the other buildings. if that means less flats then so be it.

frankly if Tesco arrive, the only thing you can all do is not go there - if you are all strong willed enough it isn't a problem, support Jay and he will stay.

TM said...

None of the reasons for refusal previously have been addressed ergo it should be refused again.

I wonder if Antic are pushing this or Tesco's property department?

david said...

I quite like the design, but it does look as though it will be too high for the street. Nearby homeowners could complain that their property will be overlooked by the new development.

What occupies the retail space is important and can be used as grounds for appeal. Not on the basis of I hate Tesco or even a possible threat to the viability of Budgens or Co-Op - presumably, if it's a Tesco, it'll be a Tesco Metro so in the same market in terms of price, stock range, etc and therefore fair competition. However, supermarkets need regular supply which means an increase in goods traffic. With Budgens and the Jack opposite already receiving heavies there's a danger of the road becoming impassable for emergency services. Equally, supermarkets result in an increase in shopper traffic. Brockley high street doesn't have parking facilities and many - me included - park on the side roads and walk down. Residents on Sevenoaks road could post oppositon using this argument. Although they may end up a CPZ for their trouble instead.

Or at least those points are similar to the ones my Dad successfully argued to - ironically given some people's enthusiasm for them - keep a Waitrose out the area of Birmingham where he lives

Anonymous said...

To me what it boils down to is that it is a bad, bland, boring design. As someone has already said Tesco shouldn't be the main issue. There is a lot of modern architecture going up that has more soul rather than looking like this is - boring and outdated. The architect's website doesn't show much, but there is some OK design on it, so I think they could do better.

If you are all against it, do as I am planning and write to the planners at LBL, but remember to use your head and not your heart (however hard) when giving your objections. I don't think 'I don't want a Tesco' will do it.

Ian on the HIll said...

OK, where on the net do I go to object to it?

Nell said...

What on earth do Antic think they are doing? They have provided some great local pubs but now wish to put all that goodwill to one side and put this up. Well let's start a boycott of Jam Circus until they realise that this is a hideous plan!

Anonymous said...

If you want to object then write to

Mr Steve Isaacson
Senior Planning Officer
Lewisham Council
Planning Service
1 Laurence House
Catford Road
London
SE6 4RU

RE: Application Number DC/12/79879/FT

details of the application

http://acolnet.lewisham.gov.uk/LEWIS-XSLPagesDC/acolnetcgi.exe?ACTION=UNWRAP&RIPNAME=Root.PgeResultDetail&TheSystemkey=66114

If you are serious about writing to object then consider the previous reasons that this scheme was rejected and don't focus on how "unfair" it is for Budgens - don't even mention Tesco. As mentioned previosuly, the previous concerns have not been adequatetly addressed (in my opinion).

Check the Lewisham council planning criteria - things like noise and disruption during the build are not considered so your comments should focus on the criteria that are considered.

Anonymous said...

What an ugly building...what is wrong with the architect? Whats wrong with something in keeping with the Jack opp and still have balconies...?
I'm all in favour of another Cafe...instead of a shop, boring!

Crofty said...

The developer still hasn't posted notice of this planning application on the proposed site, which I thought was against the rules. They really do seem to be desperate to aggravate the situation - like their pulling down the old building without permission, then fencing off the public right of way behind the site for months.

It almost seems sociopathic. I have not set foot in Jam Circus since I found out at the public meeting last year that the owners of the site are Antic, the pub's owners. Amazing that they seem to be going out of their way to create bad feeling.

Alison said...

A lot of people have commented on this development and have objected to the size of it etc. PLEASE send your thoughts to Lewisham Planning Dept. Last day for objections is !0th July.It's really important that as many as possible let the council know how they feel. Details are already in one of these messages.
As for a new supermarket bringing jobs- these will be cancelled out by the jobs lost when some of the smaller shops close because of falling trade. Also, these huge supermarkets pressure famers so much that their businesses are no longer viable and they go out of business. And as for what they are doing in the developing world (don't get me started) Profits will always come first.
People are starting to think outside the box about local High Streets and how they can be alive, creative and vibrant places. Maybe we should start to think about that too so we don't get swamped by "same old, same old"( if you know what I mean).

Anonymous said...

Alison - as has been said before in the comments, saying you don't want a supermarket for the reasons you list will have no effect on the planners. You have to focus on the PLANNING issues.

Anonymous said...

Is there anywhere I can sign in favour of a Supermarket?

Alison said...

In reply to Anonymous, I concentrated completely on planning in my arguments to the Council. Hope everybody else did too. My second paragraph was just a reply to people who had mentioned jobs etc.in previous postings as if having a conversation.I thought that was allowed.
My last comment was meant to be about planning too and the need to look at our area in a different way e.g. maybe someone with experience( an architect? ) could suggest a better design or way of using the space in an interesting way. I've heard that some communities in this country join together and change things in their area for the better.There's also this Mary Portas idea floating about for Forest Hill and Sydenham.

Please support BC by clicking here when you shop with Amazon

Brockley Central Label Cloud