Bid to turn Lewisham House into 230 new homes

Photo courtesy of Geograph
A planning application has been submitted to convert Lewisham House (25 Molesworth Street) for residential use, with the aim of creating 230 apartments.

The building was once the main UK office for Citi, but the international bank outgrew its Lewisham home and decamped to Canary Wharf decades ago. What's left is a useless eyesore that Citi has been holding on to as a contingency plan in the event of an emergency.

Details are sketchy at this stage and ideally this project would involve a full re-skin or something more dramatic than simply installing new windows, but it would be nice for something to be done with this lump.




A credible plan for some sort of incubator space might be better for the future of the area, but this plan would help Lewisham meet its new homes-target and put more life in to the town centre, boosting its chances of building a viable "night time economy."

91 comments:

terrencetrentderby said...

As long as the skin isn’t multi-coloured cladding, for the love of god.

More flats said...

Citibank has for a long time been the most prominent building in Lewisham. It really says so much about what we have come to expect from local government. Turning it into a block of flats would be would be a no-brainer for Lewishams preferred building partners and would be entirely consistent with the dormitory strategy for the town centre.

anon said...

They should turn it into offices for small businesses. To regenerate the area, we need more than just fancy new flats and rooftop bars.

Brockley Nick said...

Just to play devil's advocate - why do we need more than that?

LdnSE4 said...

I highly doubt having more flats in Lewisham town centre will improve "night time economy". In fact, how long will the new residents start complaining about the noise? Isn't that the basis of our opposition to the development of flats behind the Fox and Firkin?



A town centre should have a mixture of shops, restaurants and offices. Lewisham is falling behind because it has become a dormitory inner city suburb, while other councils like Chiswick are doing everything they can to entice multinational to set up base, and successfully to.


As for the actual building, tear it down and start all over again. And bill Citibank.

anon said...

knock it down along with the shopping center and car park and re-thing and come out with a revolutionary pplan for the town center. There is a massive potential and the area between Lewisham High Street, Lewis Grove and the A21 is massive, it needs a total re-designing and the potential is infinite for the brave and creative.


Only in Lewisham...

Brockley Nick said...

There is a difference between people (hypothetically) complaining about a pub garden right next door to their window and people 10 storeys up above a shopping centre finding something to complain about. I don't see that that kind of moaning is a risk in this case.


Chiswick is just about the only part of London that has built any kind of successful business park outside of zone 1 in the last decade and (as someone with clients in that park) I fail to see that it does much of anything for Chiswick town centre. It's a self-contained place, conveniently located for car drivers to get in and out quickly. And it's there because its proximity to Heathrow makes it handy for those multinationals.


I've written about this before, but there is nothing unique about Lewisham's plight - jobs are becoming increasingly centralised in an arc from the West End to Canary Wharf. Yes, at the margins, we should try and attract businesses, but I question whether this building - and even Lewisham as a location - is going to have much success before the Bakerloo Line moves in. Lewisham is neither quirky and edgy enough for the businesses that don't care about transport links and employee safety, nor well-connected and pristine enough for those who do.

Headhunter said...

Far more environmentally and cost friendly to "recycle" it. Demolition and reconstruction is extremely wasteful

Anon said...

I was amazed this wasn't coming down as part of the Lewisham Gateway refurb. The second most psychologically damaging building in the borough (outside Leegate Tower) - properly grim and visible from nearly everywhere nearby. Take it down and start over.

In related matters, will Lewisham station be able to handle the massive increase in flats that have either recently gone up across the road or are scheduled to be built over the next 5 years? We must be talking thousands of extra households in Loampit Vale, Lewisham Gateway, Riverdale House and potentially this one, without any extra transport capacity being added.

Guest said...

I've lived in cities where 30 storey buildings are common and yes the sound from the street below is just as bad as it will be from a two storey up. Especially if there is a night club somewhere. Residents of a building I once lived in successfully shut down a club below because of noise.

Anon said...

With only 20 minutes away from Canary Wharf and 30 to London City Airport and 15 to the City, I can't see why the council doesn't propose itself as a cheaper alternative to Canary Wharf and the City for companies to set up offices in. Many start ups are being priced out of Old Street and Lewisham council has once again failed to capitalised on rising office rents in central London.

Brockley Nick said...

Two words: Tube Map.

Brockley Nick said...

You've posted under three different ids on this thread. Do you mind sticking to one, so that the conversation is easier to follow please. Anyway, the point is, they are directly above a shopping centre, not some quiet street.

Nemo said...

yes that is what I thought, so perhaps streetfeast wont be interested if they are planning to build yet more characterless sterile flats. Shame.

John said...

Great idea. I've been round this ghost ship of a building and agree that either resi or an actual working place of work would be an asset to Lewisham.

blowitup said...

Yay, more flats for investors to leave empty.

Seriously, we should blow it up to celebrate the ineptitude of Lewisham council.

patrick1971 said...

I thought this building was full of asbestos, which was why it hadn't been pulled down already. I guess property prices have now reached a level where it's economically viable to remove the asbestos (if indeed it is there).

I work at that business park in Chiswick and I'd agree with Nick that it does little for Chiswick town centre; it's just that bit too far to go for lunch and there are two restaurants on site so we tend to go there.

Speaking of blocks of flats in Lewisham, are those two blocks that are in mid-construction on the north side of Loampit Vale to the west of the station really not going to look any better than they do now? At least the Glass Mill flats aren't actively offensive to the eye. The two to the north of Loampit Vale look like secure facilities. Horrific.

Martin said...

In my opinion without offices it's hard to have a thriving town centre. Weekend shopping is not enough to support it. I also think that the borough would improve dramatically if there were more employment opportunities.

Matt-Z said...

TfL are likely to make a renewed effort to take over the inner suburban lines currently run by SouthEastern in the next few years. If the London Overgrounding of the west anglia lines to Cheshunt and Chingford goes well Kent politicians may soften their stance. That would see Lewisham's place on the tube map underlined as early as 2020 (of course it's already there thanks to the DLR, but it does appear a long way away from civilization).

Heds said...

According to the works document, all they are doing is removing asbestos, replacing the power plant, stripping out and bunging in residential units.


So, no new cladding, repairing where possible windows etc, and stuffing it full of flats.


Sounds utterly horrific frankly.

Anon said...

In the past few weeks lights at night the lights on the upper floors have been on.
When Lewisham Gateway was just a twinkle in the eye, Citi Tower & Riverside House were fully occupied by worker ants and a representative of Citi-Bank was on the Lewisham Urban Regeneration Board.
Europe's biggest police station opens and Citi-bank did a runner. :)

Anon said...

At Lewisham Central Assembly last Saturday they discussed at length the 'pop-up' homes at Ladywell.
Looks like the planning department & councillors did not know about this proposal as it was not mention when asked about StreetFeast, but I believe a councillor spoke of StreetFeast using the vacant unit in the Shopping mall that used to be a leisure facility.
Re knocking the tower down, as it forms part of the shopping centre are Citi-Bank merely the leaseholders?t

Anon said...

From the documents....

"There is currently a pair of Peregrine Falcons nesting on the roof of the Lewisham House building. The Peregrines and their nest and eggs are protected by law and during the mating season (February – August) the nest and its surrounding environs must not be disturbed."

Newby said...

Isnt that what Citi tried to do to lower costs but couldnt pursuade many of their employees to move there?

Anon said...

PS. The construction vehicle proposals do not take account of the road layout (Jan 24) or the future one?
Also, as discussed at the Lewisham Central Assembly if the Ladywell 'pop up' homes gets the green light there will transporters delivering large units to the site.

Headhunter said...

They've probably started switching all the lights on to scare away the Peregrine Falcons which could end up a thorn in the side of these plans....

Max Calò said...

I'm not sure this is entirely correct, I don't think that pubs and bars open exactly where people live but nearby. The Fox & Firkin being a good example of the issue.

terrencetrentderby said...

Sounds like a standard office to resi conversion, it was never going to be a luxury block of flats. There are tonnes of building and energy regs to adhere to so assuming Lewisham Council do their job the end result should be ok, lots of cheap flats in a pretty deserted town centre.

terrencetrentderby said...

Most investors rent their flats out so what is your arguement here? I imagine most of them will go to first time buyers/young professionals anyway given the affordability and links to Canary Wharf.
I'm the first to slag LC off but this conversion is a great idea. Empty eyesore becomes a lived in and slightly less eyesore.

Leo said...

The planning application looks like this is the case too. If so, there is no need for full planning permission as long as the exterior is not altered. This also handily sidesteps any requirement to enter into a s106 agreement so no money for local infrastructure and no affordable housing either.

Anon said...

Can anyone clear up whether this was supposed to be the proposed site of the rooftop cinema etc? Would be a crying shame if the most exciting local proposal in years got stalled as a result of this

Pizza snob said...

By the look of this:

https://twitter.com/bigeater/status/494543131317395456

It is the same building. Fingers crossed for it.

terrencetrentderby said...

These are all effectively incentives though for developers to convert offices into flats and it looks like it is working, hopefully more conversions will follow. Given the current housing shortage any cut in red tape is good. Things like s106 agreements are ultimately born by whoever buys the flats, the developers are in it for the profit (as was whoever sold them the land or building) and are not charities so this is just robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Anon said...

How annoying. This is why we can't have nice things.

anon said...

Who cares when 100k new people move into London every year. Lewisham along with Elephant and Castle and Old Kent Road is one of the few areas in Central zone 2 that can provide additional everything, council flats, shopping area, offices, proper flats ...

We will plant few trees or buy some corbon certificates to offset the demolition.

Matt-Z said...

It looks more like the roof of the shopping centre than the tower block. Windows and brickwork match the former, not the latter.

AliAfro said...

Canary Wharf has hundreds of thousands of sq ft of office space. Lewisham does not.
Croydon does. Be careful what you wish for.

Max Calò said...

Yes, things like s106 are ultimately born by whoever buys the flats... to provide them with bus stops, pavements.... And since Citibank is not short of cash if they are going to profit from 230 flats they should also contribute to the amenities that these new residents need.

AliAfro said...

Even with the overground, rightly or wrongly, lots of people still don't consider Brockley to be on the tube map...

AliAfro said...

Not sure what this has to do with the council? Its up the owner what they do with it... and in any case - the young professionals who are likely to buy the flats might just go out locally supporting local bars/restaurants. All that will be displaced is a vacant tenant.

AliAfro said...

if you are changing the external appearance then you can do the conversion under permitted development rights which avoids the need to pay a section 106 contribution towards community infrastructure improvements. Sometimes a developer will leave the building looking ugly accepting that the savings on the cost of conversion outweigh any loss to the sale price per flat.

AliAfro said...

Typo *If you are NOT changing the external appearance then you can do the conversion under permitted development rights...

AliAfro said...

Or maybe they will be licking their lips at all the young professionals who move to the area and buy the flats...

AliAfro said...

Wrong building - street feast is going to be on riverdale hall which is next to citi tower but different building: http://www.lewisham.gov.uk/myservices/business/licences-and-street-trading/Documents/CurrentApplications.doc

Pizza snob said...

Well that's a relief! Sorry for spreading unnecessary panic.

AliAfro said...

nah wrong building. I suspect the photo of citi tower is taken from the venue... heres the licence application:
http://www.lewisham.gov.uk/myservices/business/licences-and-street-trading/Documents/CurrentApplications.doc

PeoplesAssemblySEL said...

There is a March For Homes happening on Saturday 31st, starting at noon Elephant and Castle. The aim of which is to kickstart a conversation on housing policy in London that takes in the needs of ordinary Londoners.

Affordable housing: How can people, who are on ordinary incomes have a chance to buy a home? Schemes such as 'Help-to-buy' don't redress the scale of insufficient provision.

Flats are being built and proposed, as we can see in the subject of this thread and address a particular market, but what about secure affordable housing, so people can build a life, raise a family, private rented accommodation too often doesn't allow for that. Are rent caps a solution?

For more, you can click here -> http://marchforhomes.org/details/

Also: currently local party Lewisham People for Profit are taking a direct action to raise the profile of the housing crisis in London. They've built a 'house of cards' outside Lewisham Town Hall. There's lots of press coverage and on twitter and things. http://youtu.be/CHxVCNwaTxs

Monkeyboy said...

This is interesting, not quiet the same situation here as TfL does not own the tower. I think MTR in Hong Kong buy land, build a railway and then sell it on at a higher price as part of their funding model.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/davehillblog/2015/jan/28/transport-for-london-to-scale-up-its-property-development-wing

Monkeyboy said...

that 'house' built from Estate Agents boards does not include London & Country, owned by their Ray Woolford. Must be an oversight rather than a deliberate ommision I'm sure.

Anon said...

What do you mean by ordinary, someone who earns less than you?
Isn't People For Profit funded by an Estate Agent that boasts of dealing with City & Canary Wharf properties and short term & holiday lets?
How's that providing homes for 'ordinary' Londoners to live in and create a family life?
I didn't see any for sale signs from a certain estate agent used to build your pop up home at Catford.
At the Lewisham it was said people were being made homeless by Landlords, doesn't a founder of People Before Profits represent landlords?

Rhian said...

The permitted development changes have resulted in plenty of low quality conversions. Much better if these things go through the planning process where all the issues get considered properly and the developer actually makes a contribution through s106

Newby said...

"Are rent caps a solution?" No they are not since they act as a disincentive to build more properties, see property prices in Stockholm as a good example of what can happen when rent controls are implemented. Increasing supply will lower prices like it does in the market for any other product. Maybe you should have a march to kick off a discussion about getting rid of the insane Green Belt policy instead?

Kate said...

In terms of putting in affordable housing, the government has now changed the rules so that if a building is vacant the developers don't have to put in as much affordable... so expect very little.
The trouble with this latest resi proposal is that Lewisham town centre doesn't really have much in the way of "entertainment" to offer - so it's not really attractive for people to live there if there's nothing to do. There needs to be more imagination in planning town centres - if you are going to build all these houses/flats at least give people theatres/cinemas/nice restaurants/bars/cafes/shops etc.... otherwise they will take their money and spend elsewhere

James said...

I'm surprised no one seems to have picked up on the fact that of the 230 flats, just under half are studios, with the one and two bedroom apartments looking prohibitively small from the plans. I really can't see how any of these flats could be remotely desirable consider the extortionate prices they'll most likely be flogged at.

PeoplesAssemblySEL said...

Might rent controls release the buy-to-let housing, that is often cited as stopping, young and first timers getting onto the property ladder?

PeoplesAssemblySEL said...

The South East London Peoples Assembly Against Austerity is made up of a lot people and groups. Ordinary people, some on low incomes, who are have been sanctioned, some who are doing alright, some who are well off. Lewisham People Before Profit have taken some direct action and we've let people know about it, if you have issues and questions, go down to the 'House of Cards' in Catford and you can speak to them about it or come onto the March on Saturday and chat with us your fellow Londoners.

terrencetrentderby said...

Citibank's liabilities end when the sell the building to developers, I doubt they will contribute to anything
unless they are feeling emotionally charitable towards Lewisham. I assume they have paid millions in business rates over the years anyway.
Regardless of any s106 agreements this will improve the surrounding area dramatically, hundreds of new people living/spending where previously there was just an enormous void.

JPM said...

It is a shame that so little thought goes in to converting a building of this size for residential use.
It's bound to be low-end; simply taking advantage of the current regulations of office-to-resi - and without much challenge by the planning authority.
I saw one of these conversions at Forest Hill. The developer changed the use on a building that had NEVER been an office. All of the documentation, bills, letters, was falsified. The planning department did not pick up on it.
Surprise.

Nemo said...

Ok thanks for clarifying. Streetfeast will probably be pleased with all the homecounties young professionals moving in for sure!

Martin said...

Indeed. The overground is not considered to be the 'real' tube by the others :( The metropolitan line also shares tracks with long distance trains so I don't know why there's such perception. But then there's large population of people in North London who consider anything South of the river a different country (and not in a good, 'almost France' way).

Anon said...

If someone is desperate to be housed they don't care how small a property is?

Here's a £200,000 Studio apartment available from London & Country (Housemartins ?)
http://www.zoopla.co.uk/for-sale/details/34307863#Xem1SYXuYwRD29MX.97

Also available from London & Country is this 666 sq ft terraced house a snip at £500,000.

And to confirm London & Country isn't all about profit there is this blurb for an 'investment' property in Endwell Road...

"Great Investment small studio office with private double glazed entrance to well fitted studio room with private disabled wash room and plumbed in kitchen. Presently let out to Ace Van rental at £6, 000 per year. Just yards from Brockley station in Landmark building in fantastic location. Truly good investment at every level, and prime real estate for less than £100.000. Priced to sell."

http://www.zoopla.co.uk/for-sale/details/34668211#kxMySMyyAyWMgXZ2.97
Just an ordinary estate agent run by ordinary people going about their business.

Tamsin said...

And it does, of course, help the situation if you disperse the services of the central Lewisham bus station to build more flats on the space. Must be a bit of a first - to be wrecking existing infrastructure to create a demand for more.

Tamsin said...

don't you mean robbing Peter to pay Peter taking a cut on the way?

newby said...

As I said have a look at what happens in Cities with rent controls or think of any market where dumb lefties try and cap prices.

Headhunter said...

Why is green belt insane? Do you really want urban sprawl from London right down to the south coast and up across the Chiltern Hills? Do you want to live in a city from which it takes 2 or 3 hours to get into open country? I don't.

Newby said...

I think we are living through an unprecedented intertemporal wealth transfer from the young to the old. The green belt helps reinforce this by creating an artificial constraint on the supply of houses thus driving up the price of housing. Build build build and if people are so desperate to keep some semi arable land in that condition well go and buy it.

anon said...

I'm all for the idea of conversion, but in reality they should knock it down, start again and get it right. As for first time buyers (they're not so 'young professionals' anymore) and they can only rent in Lewisham from buy to let foreigners or right/help to buy landlords, oh the hypocrisy.

Headhunter said...

You think building flats over Kent and Surrey is suddenly going to change the transfer of wealth?! I very much doubt it. It just sounds like a way of putting money in the pockets of developers. How about we/the government try to do more to transfer business out of the south east and London and up to semi abandoned cities up north where you can buy an entire street of "period" Victorian homes for about a pound? The fact is that there is no shortage of homes in eth UK as a whole, it's just in the SE where business is very heavily focused.

Newby said...

I dont think the government should be doing anything other than getting out of the way. Its not just London, other growing cities are constrained by their Green belts (see Oxford, Cambridge etc). Firms settle in London for a reason, people settle here for a reason. I doubt that government planners could replicate these pull factors in other cities. Or put another way I doubt the UK could support more than one mega/world class city so any policy of constraining London would be to the detriment of the entire UK. There is an historical precedent for such a policy also when it was tried in Birmingham in the 50s such a policy failed.

Headhunter said...

Well I don't believe everything should be left entirely to the capitalist market. the government is paid to put in place balances to the market system and prevent things like massive swings of wealth and imbalances in the national economy, focusing everything on the SE of England.


Firms settle in London because they're following the herd, it's up to government to redress this and encourage them to spread across the land rather than in 1 tiny corner. We don't need 1 "mega/world class city" in which most of the population lives crammed into tiny flats at a huge price, we need several major cities with the population, wealth and economy spread across them. This is even more possible in the 21st century with high speed internet, video conferencing etc than it was in the 50s and 60s.


I don't think allowing the market to dictate everything as you seem to ask above is the way to achieve what you wanted in your initial comment - balance of wealth...

Newby said...

I agree to an extent. Local government should set their own tax levels for business and arguably for income tax too. I still do not see that this would produce a move away from London since there is some other reason for people to move here. It is currenly cheaper for a multinational to build its EU HQ in Sunderland but they do not. The location decision is between Paris, London and maybe Madrid. London usually wins due to economies of scale goven it is basically the capital of Europe. If we did not have a World class city then I do not see firms choosing to locate in the UK. I guess we disagree - fine thats what makes a market.

Phil Spencer said...

Whoever buys them will be paying what they think they are worth relative to the local market. Expect lots of young first time buyers, or divorced fathers...

Headhunter said...

I don't necessarily think that local governments should set their own tax levels. That may simply pitch councils in competition with each other to get tax rates as low as they can. This is obviously good for business but perhaps not fair on councils as some naturally have an advantage due to location, national transport links etc.


Personally I think that effecting balance of wealth and business across the country is something central government should do more to bring about. They already do and have to some extent. You mention Sunderland, I think Toyota has it's European HQ there doesn't it? That was brought about with encouragement from central government.


Companies base themselves in London largely because their suppliers and clients are here. Take the finance industry. The major investment banks are here because the business support network is here. A few years ago when all these financial firms threatened to up sticks and move to Switzerland because of threatened tax increases I think most just laughed. It would take a looong time for the bulk of the finance industry to move overseas, it has too much invested in London. Not impossible but it's highly unlikely to happen overnight after 1 policy shift.


What we need is for major employers to be encouraged away from London and the southeast. Major manufacturers like Toyota who become the hub of a major business network which encourages smaller suppliers etc and then in theory other major producers who can also benefit from this network etc etc.


Look at a city like Glasgow which had an enormous shipping industry. Once this sort of major business disappears it's very hard to recreate because all the skilled labour moves away, the suppliers go bust and the entire network falls apart, however this is the sort of business development that should, if possible, be encouraged.


I don't think having a "world class city" necessarily helps the UK. Certainly London is world class when it comes to finance, perhaps media and possibly other industries but there are plenty of other sectors which have no reason whatsoever to be in London and as you say, can quite easily be in Paris or Madrid... So why not Liverpool or Sheffield?

Headhunter said...

Oops, that turned into a bit of an essay... Hope it's not TLDR...

Phil Spencer said...

Nope, need to increase supply by building more homes and reduce demand by restricting immigration.

JPM said...

My post did not refer to the estate agent, or the size of the rooms so your response puzzles.
My concern was ensuring that the best is delivered - however small, and at an affordable price to the many, not the few.
This is an office and was designed to be an office.
People Before Profit is not against profit by the way. Just placing people - rightly sometimes but not always - before profit.

Max Calò said...

Something around the matters discussed in this thread that was revealed at the Lewisham Central Assembly on Saturday. That Lewisham Council lent £20m to Lewisham Homes to buy low end accommodations on the open market.

I was gobsmacked, correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that basically Lewisham Council snapped all the entry level flats in Lewisham competing with those that could afford only that type of property. And they could have probably built twice as many units with the same money.

Monkeyboy said...

Ray has never addressed how he can simultaneously decry the housing market and yet own and earn a living from the very landlords he criticises. I've not stood for office, he has. He's a narcissist, he's canonise himself if he could

peter said...

here you are monkeyboy, have a look at this and try to be a little bit less narrow-minded:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9dpYfvRpcI&feature=share

terrencetrentderby said...

I knew LC were lazy, but that takes the biscuit. Also like other councils they have been selling properties off cheap for years, homes that will cost much more to replace.

Tamsin said...

Totally agree - and I would be very suspicious of the links - disclosed and undisclosed of MPs voting to release green belt land for building and the landowners and developers who will make unprecedented profits from it. The whole notion stinks.
And you can already see the spin that will be put on it.

peter said...

I would have thought monkeyboy, that if you have the qualifications to diagnose somebody as a narcissist you'd have the intelligence to get in touch with Ray and ask him the question yourself - he's pretty easy to get hold of. Let us know what the answer is.

Monkeyboy said...

I have. I've emailed and replied to many of his Twitter statements where he has criticised the private rental and housing market while making his living from it. I've pulled him up on his anti-Semitic ramblings (although i suspect that's more stupidity than malice). He's mostly harmless but the fact that he's gone from vice chair of Lewisham conservatives, a former director of the Residential Landlords Association, to Lib Dem Councillor to local candidate means that he owes the electorate an explanation of how his politics work.

Anon said...

One only has to follow his own online links to see he has connections with the selling of what looks like ex council housing stock.

London & Country recommends selling by auction and provides links to a company that states....


"Auction is also an ideal method of disposal for all manner of lots from vacant property, tenanted investments, office premises..."


Note the 'tenanted investments' or there's this....


"We have an investor database of over 15,000 buyers who we will target with a view to maximise the value of your property."

http://www.iam-sold.co.uk/public/IAS_COMMERICAL_VALUERBROCHURE.pdf

Captain Perspective said...

Play the ball, not the man.

JosephJohnODonnell said...

Those two look like something from the soviet union.

AliAfro said...

dont know the details but purchasers often get a substantial bulk discount when buying new builds + and maybe lewisham had a pressing need for new homes urgently that necessitated this inefficient method... Interestingly the Lewisham homes website says they are working with the council to build new homes - must be a different proj.. All sounds very weird.

Max Calò said...

We were told it was because of a surge in people needing urgent accommodation that would be placed in B&B instead (without breakfast it was specified).

birdman said...

reading the plans its a quick fix to home 200+ off the B&B list

lewisham said...

Planning permission has been approved for this conversion now

lewishamm said...

any news on this one?

Brockley Central Label Cloud