Saints Row - Revised plans for St Cyprian's


The developers behind plans to turn St Cyprian's Church in to a mixed use commercial and residential building have been reen submitted with revisions. The new plans appear to be a slightly less muscular version of the last proposal, which included a ground-floor space suitable for a restaurant.

The church is currently a crumbling wreck, being used by a fundamentalist Christian church with parking issues. As a status quo, it's pretty unsatisfactory, however, the plans have provoked more than 20 critical responses from local residents.

If you want to comment on the plans, you need to do so before February 15th. Please send an email to planning@lewisham.gov.uk including the application number (DC/10/74907), your name, address, comment and reason for interest - FAO Jan Mondrzejewski.

32 comments:

qbf said...

Hard to tell what the windows will look like from that drawing - provided they aren't too modern it looks like a fairly sympathetic design.

Osh said...

I'm amazed this hasn't had more comments. It's a great scheme and I can't believe anyone would rather have a nutty church that's falling down instead.

Please make it happen!

LR said...

Osh/all - you can help to make it happen - just send an email in favour of the plans to the email address listed on the post with all the requested information...

Reg said...

I like it.

Anonymous said...

interesting use of the word 'muscular'...not sure what you mean by it though.

Anonymous said...

As much as I would like to see the building used for better things than it's current purpose, the flats on that side of Brockley Road in addition to the development on the other side (which is an L shaped plot coming onto Braxfield Rd) will make for an incredibly congested road on Braxfield. Parking is already at a premium and particularly for elderly residents, this will be extremely inconvenient.

I would prefer to see a business that would stimulate this stretch of Brockley Road's economy and appearance.

Anonymous said...

I'd love the ground floor to become a bar/restaurant. But then I don't live next door!

Danja said...

I think Nick meant it has been thoroughly watered down to something much more anaemic and bland. Part planners, part "value-architecting" I suspect.

KL said...

Only a matter of time until residential parking comes in. Not sure but think the elderly can apply for designated parking spots outside their property. This can only be a good thing for the area....

Paddyom said...

I think it's great!

Anonymous said...

Did others manage to open any of the documents on LBL's planning site? Not sure if it's a problem with my browser or their site, but I couldn't access them.

Just looking at the picture and not having seen any of the details on social housing provision etc, I think it looks quite nice - lovely undertakers and frontage of church preserved, height of building in line with rest of street etc. What are objectors' main concerns, besides parking? Planning can sometimes add a condition to exempt occupants of new flats from being entitled to apply for CPZ parkings, but I think the zone has to either already be in effect or at least being considered,so not sure if that would be of use here or not.

Anonymous said...

I'm afraid I have to disagree with Sue, the window treatment to Brockley Road is rather naive.
The mirrored/handed window rhythms looks out of context and requires more thought.
I sincerely hope the architect will revisit the drawing board and propose something more exciting.
TT

Anonymous said...

also, there is no relationship with the windows of 196 & 194. I strongly feel that the massing should confine to two levels keeping it in line with the neighboring buildings.
TT

Anonymous said...

@anon - not necessarily disagreeing with you - I can't open any of the file to look at the app' in more detail, so just going by the one drawing, which is a bit limiting!

Kate said...

anyone want to comment on these proposals - do you think it'll be good for the area or not? I'm writing something for SLP and would appreciate some comments either for or against! Kate Gould 020 8710 6478

lucia said...

I think it's always a good idea to get more flats in the area. Provided they are affordable.

I also think that the design should NOT be sympathetic. The buildings on either side are quite different, this one's gonna have a church sticking out of it! This is a new era in the life of that plot.

I am stunned everytime I read BC comments at how many of you drive to the supermarket -and complain about the roads being congested!! Are you being sarcastic?

Anonymous said...

It's all very well to submit a proposal that will make a great profit for developers, but what of the residents directly effected by the scale of the proposed buildings?
Houses behind the church will lose a great deal of privacy as well as light and, as a consequence, market value. I also think that resident permits are all very well but you can only fit so many cars on one road. Why does this development have to be super profitable for the developers at the expense of life long local residents. By all means develop the site but not to the detriment of the immediate residents.

LT said...

The plans include a 1.8m fence and substancial efforts to harmonise the building with its local surroundings - this is an excellent step towards the regeneration of this stretch of Brockley Road which will bring more people (probably young professionals)with more disposable income which will mean more restaurants, cafes, shops etc all the normal things you would expect to come with regeneration. As far as I'm aware the developers also bought the two properties directly next to the church with the nearest one being turned into flats (very recently). So in terms of immediate residents I think they will be tenants.

Tamsin said...

Might "muscular" be slightly referential to the concept of "muscular Christianity"?

I think used, with parking issues, by a fundamentalist church. It is not the church that has the issues!

Anonymous said...

What on earth are you going on about?

Tamsin said...

Only caught up with this thread late in the day (work intervened!) and someone had queried the use of the word "muscular" in Nick's starting post, so I commented on a resonance it had in my mind.

I was also (pedantically but gently, I hope) pulling him up on the word order of "used by a fundamentalist Christian church with parking issues".

Your question could have been put more politely - particuarly since you can't be bothered to identify yourself.

Brockley Nick said...

Tamsin, your pedantry was misplaced. The church does have parking issues. Its issue is that its followers expect to park willy-nilly.

Tamsin said...

Hmm - I still beg respectfully to differ - they are obviously oblivious and park willy-nilly as you say - they have no issues and are as happy as Larry. What they do and their use of the building creates issues for others - so it is "used, with parking issues, by a fundamentalist Christian Church."

But thanks for the posting - it is nice to know what is planned for this site bang in your face as you approach from Adelaide Avenue.

Anonymous said...

I'm with LT, the plans clearly show a huge effort has been made to consider local residents. The accommodation has been pushed to the North and East of the site to eliminate overshadowing of the rear gardens. The rear amenity space, to the South and West of the site, that could have been used to provide additional housing, will give residents plenty of desirable outdoor space.

The site could clearly take more accommodation so accusing the developers of seeking a super profit doesn't make sense.

I'll be doing as LR suggests and will make my support known to the planners. It would be a shame if a scheme like this did not happen due to nimbyism. It will increase property not decrease them, ask any estate agent in the area.

Anonymous said...

@Lucia

It's not residents driving to the supermarket, it's people driving back from work having picked up their children. It will be nightmare parking on this road when both developments are finished. It's not sarcasm, it's not laziness, it's not gas guzzling, it's people who want to park on the road where they live.

Lucia said...

You drive to work? Oh good for you!

Anonymous said...

Oh sorry, should people not drive to work? Clearly it must be an irresponsible 5 minute drive in a 4x4. Or maybe it's a small car which drives two teachers and children to work/nursery everyday. Get real.

Anonymous said...

It's a shame that this thread has degenerated into an argument about personal driving habits.

I don't believe that losing the parking space in front of your house is any reason for objecting to proposals that will significantly improve the urban realm and give local residents good quality housing and possibly a nice new restaurant.

Perhaps campaigning for a CPZ or establishing more car sharing schemes would be a more appropriate avenue to explore.

Parking is not the issue here. Developing run down eyesores and providing much needed housing is a good thing for Brockley.

Ted.

Lucia said...

I agree with you Ted.

Anonymous said...

Lewisham's £33m savings package includes doubling the price of CPZs http://fb.me/TtvdM0Ct

Anonymous said...

Sorry, I am not an Architect,but how is that bland,dull structure on top of the church 'sympathetic' to what sits below it?

ShamGlam said...

Does anyone know whats happening with this development of flats and resturants, the development of 296 Brockley Road looks to have happened

Brockley Central Label Cloud