The Beast of Brockley Cross

Ramsey Snow: If you think this has a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention.
- Game of Thrones

The developers trying to get away with this car crash of a building at 1-1a Brockley Cross will take their case to appeal on February 17th. The application was refused in November 2014 but they're determined to lift the 2016 Carbuncle Cup.

With thanks to Jon.

28 comments:

Lord Todgers said...

As I live nowhere near this site, and only drive past rarely, I would welcome this exciting venture into 'seat of your pants' architecture.

Headhunter said...

It's awful. It's a very prominent site in Brockley and it would totally dominate that corner. Everything else it at least 1 storey shorter....

anon said...

Lewisham will approve it, they're stuck in the past. All development and money is good for them!

Max Calò said...

It may be a Dr Who tribute. That's a Dalek.

guest said...

Can't be worse than all the new buildings on Mantle Road, so I approve. We need ugly buildings parity in the entire of Greater Brockley.

Martin said...

For me the issue is that it looks like a bunker - it's heavy, and dark and depressing. I'm ok with the fact that it's a bit taller than the surrounding buildings.

westsider said...

Ooof that's still ugly. London need lots of housing, but it doesn't need to look crap. I don't mind the height (it should maybe be higher), I do mind the view. Brockley has some character - let's try to preserve it. The track record on Mantle Road isn't great, but the design of the latest addition there (ie the one immediately opposite the alleyway) offers some hope - could they redesign in similar style to that?

Peter Tooke said...

It puzzles me how any architect would take pride from putting forward such an ugly and mediocre design - and on a prominent site where there's such an opportunity to showcase their work with something really clever and special. I agree the height isn't the issue, but what the hell are those heavy twin pillars about? Back to the drawing board please! I am pleased to hear LB Lewisham refused this and hope the Inspector does too - as we really do need to aspire to something rather better.

guest said...

Paul Tuck and the rest of Parkhill Group has absolutely zero pride. Their modus operandi is buy a house, gut it into tiny flats and make massive ROI. They have zero passions in architecture, only big profits - it is practically their mission statement.

http://theparkhillgroup.com/our-story.html

Now I love making big profits as well, but I also like my work to be meaningful.

Gill said...

That made for depressing reading

JPM said...

It’s called negotiation.

The planning committee - or officer if he or she is crafty - turns it down .

The developer lodges a usually written ‘Appeal’.

Whilst that’s awaiting adjudication…

Planning officer passes what developer really really wants. That’s the other monstrosity he’s had lurking in the background, just in case.

Then the developer, if he’s really naughty, also chances it. He goes forward with the appeal anyway. And why not..

And we suck it all in, breathe a sigh of relief, none the wiser. Consulted.

End.

Martin said...

Having read that page I have no doubt that in real life the building will be even worse than in the visualisation.

Mackerel Sky said...

How can we make our feelings known about this crap building? Is there a way of making a representation for the decision on February 17th?

shed said...

Turns out that Christopher Barnes of "Architecture Design" is not a registered architect. Figures. He's pushing it in terms of protection of title (not allowed to call yourself an architect if you're not one). I did wonder after reading "un-suite" on one of the mutated knob-shaped plans.

shed said...

Where do people get these architects? If that was produced by a first year on my course they'd have been failed, thrown off the roof, then failed again just in case. I don't understand how 1. Anybody could design that or 2. How anybody could accept that design!

anonymouse said...

You can write to the planning inspector, you'll need the plan app number. The Inspectorate is in Bristol I think. You have to object on solid reasons, not just 'I don't like it'.

Monkeyboy said...

details attached....

Headhunter said...

Oh them. They're the ones who insist on bolting signs which say "Another Development by Parkhill" to the front of buildings in the conservation area after they've converted them into little flats... Bloody ugly. The website has spelling mistakes too... Shows how much they care!

Anon said...

Although this does look terrible, I think there is some confusion about whether this is actually what they are proposing.

This document suggests that this drawing was just part of the evolution towards the final design and that the scheme has changed substantially since then. It would be worth actually debating what is being proposed.

http://planning.lewisham.gov.uk/online-applications/files/F41742CD697B65431084DB95BBA62B00/pdf/DC_10_74808_X-ADDENDUM_TO_DESIGN___ACESS_STATEMENT-260555.pdf

anon said...

Anything the Brockley Society or Action Group can do at this stage?

guest said...

Maybe the weeds will grow up and obscure it.

terrencetrentderby said...

Nothing, they have no powers. Much like the League of Nations before WW1.

JPM said...

The link you provided is broken.

Having read some of the planning application it appears that the developer has jumped through the hoops held up by the planning department; and by Brockley Society.

“Figs 24 and 25. A scheme to address the suggestions of the Brockley Society.” Addendum to DESIGN AND ACCESS STATEMENT. Updated 19 Feb 2014.

“‘I feel that the design you have now submitted meets our expectations,“ wrote Robert Park of that august body the Brockley Society. (August as in Augustus the Princeps Civitatis, or "first among the citizens"…. of Brockley.)

The scheme back in 2011, according to Society Bobby, could therefore continue…. ‘unhindered by us’. In other words “us” we first citizens - Brockley Society.

Which is why the developer presumably pursued the plans under appeal. What then has he done wrong?

“1.03 Following comments from the local amenity society, representations from the Urban Design Officer and subsequent discussions with Planners, the design of the building went through a series of changes including the exploration of a mansard roof, a taller building with an uplift at the western section. Further concerns were raised in July 2013. “These related to design, scale, mass, form, detailing and s.106 matters.”

The developer rightly states his case:

“1.04 It is as a result of these discussions that we have spent time reviewing the redevelopment proposals for the site and amended the scheme to ensure that it would not only address Officer concerns but those of the local amenity group but would provide an attractive mixed use development with part commercial and part residential to the ground floor with residential to the floors above.”

And that is the reason why I’m not going to object.

Shardes said...

Quite possibly the ugliest building, I've seen in a long time. It takes 7
years to train as architect, submit something like in your last year,
you'd get a big fat F. What is it with architects that they do not take
the surrounding environment into account. Bunch of show ponies who take
the piss cause they know they don't have to live in it or perhaps worse,
opposite it.

shed said...

It wasn't designed by an architect as I sussed out before making my last comment. A lot of people and developers use non-architects because it saves them a few pence. They attach less value to architectural services than they do to, say, estate agent fees. This is the result! Most of the abortions built around here fall into that category. Beware of 'architectural designers' or similar. They haven't had 7 years training (or if they have they failed to qualify)! In this country anyone or their dog can submit a planning app

Shardes said...

ah, did't see your post further down. Either way, the design is a shocker. Still stand by what I say about some architects, London has been blighted by some uninspiring, gimmicky buildings: The Shard (looks really cheap up close). the walkie talkie (is a giant magnifying glass thats scorches all beneath it, and the razor reminds me of Victor Kiam (remington razors). All subjective I know but there we go. How many shapes can you create with glass and brick? It's a cock contest most of the time, and quite frankly boring. Rant over.

shed said...

I agree with you wholeheartedly, including in regard to most of the newer 'iconic' buildings, although for each one that sucks (walkie scorchie) there is another high profile building that's outstanding or at least very clever (olympic velodrome?). There are good and less-good architects. Same as with anything (engineers, builders, lawyers, cabbies). But Architects vs unqualified building designers = no comparison. For a start Architects are governed by the ARB and RIBA if chartered. And then there's the training. Taste, however, is subjective...!

Headhunter said...

Love the name for this... In the City we have the Gherkin, the Walkie Talkie etc etc but in Brockley we have THE BEAST! Even though we'd rather not have it

Brockley Central Label Cloud