what’s the issue with it?
While JK Banquets may not always have been a ‘good neighbour’ and may have tried to ignore planning rules, I think the new frontage looks much better than the old one that had the tacky tall red sign and blue ‘Caresdev’ frontage
From Google Streetview, March 2019:
I believe denying the planning permission would have consequences along the lines of enforcement action to restore the frontage to what it previously was. Does anyone really want that back?
8 Likes
Is there some way to get parking officers to come down and issue some tickets? If they ticketed here and at Livesey Hall on event days it might raise enough to fund a useful public service or reduce council tax.
4 Likes
This is a separate issue to the planning matter - and I doubt that anyone would want to send a parking enforcement officer into a potentially confrontational situation. Surely this is something which could best be addressed when licence renewal comes up?
I’d be surprised if parking fell under the remit of the licensing authority.
It’s more around whether the venue causes a nuisance to neighbours than purely a question about parking enforcement.
1 Like
That’s the first time I’ve heard gold called a ‘poor quality material’.
In all honesty though, I like it’s quirkiness.
8 Likes
Yeah I can’t get too bothered about it. It is not as though that strip is a particularly lovely area of Forest Hill and it adds a certain enjoyable eccentricity.
I would rather the Council enforced against the terrible parking violations that happen there.
13 Likes
I suppose it’s a matter of taste. In my opinion they’ve gone from one extreme to another, with a design that wouldn’t look out of place in a Dubai shopping mall or a Trump Hotel. The OP’s photographic acumen (sorry Jon) doesn’t quite show the quality of natural light when it hits that highly reflective surface.
Changes of this nature, when made are meant to enhance the streetscape, I’m not sure this succeeds. If you have a chance, ask some of the other shop owners on Perry Vale who I found were in agreement.
This is speculation, but I gather many retrospective applications are made once the local authority is informed of a planning breach. From reading the application, I am going to speculate the local authority may also have an issue with the current design as the applicant has proposed to cover the existing gold material with something else to make it less shiny.
If it was gold, I doubt they’d be running a budget banqueting hall. But this isn’t just about the finishing material. The materials used and the build quality is frankly very poor.
A great idea. Except of course the planning and parking violations are two separate issues. One does not inform the other.
Whether you like the exterior or not, there is a process to be followed and JK Banquetting did not follow that process. Should they be excused from it because some people like it?
3 Likes
Looks way better than it did before and better than M n M next door too!
I think the rejection is on somewhat subjective grounds given there really is no ‘local character’ to that area, the last ‘character’ having left after Crafty Beers closed and took down and their quirky sign (which I liked). Many of the other shopfronts are hard to describe as ‘high quality’ either, though there are some exceptions e.g. @PiazzaCucina, @ClaptonCraft.
There was also only 1 comment objecting to the planning application, so I’m not sure how many of the other shopkeepers truly object (though there were none in support either).
That said, planning almost has to reject something retrospective like this if it is to show relevance and that the planning department has teeth.
I hope there will be now a successful dialog between JK and planning, with perhaps small alterations to appease all sides, without great cost to anyone.
Enforcement action to put it back to how it was before must be the last thing anyone wants.
1 Like
I just had a quick look at some of the application documents, via the link you kindly posted. The application summary describes the work as …
Part retrospective application for the retention of shopfront at 15a-17 Perry Vale, SE23 as well as the application of semi-transparent sticking membrane and brick patterned plastic stickers to the existing shopfront.
I wonder how that will stand the test of time?
The Design & Access Statement mentions parking, which is a bit weird if all they’re proposing is a changed shopfront …
The parking for cars is predominantly through pay and display ticket at the front of the property or on the street and at the allocated parking which is three minutes’ walk from the 15A and 17 Perry vale Road. These parking in front are in character with other unites on the street. There is also parking permit allowance on the street.
Perhaps it was that which was being described as low quality, rather than the current 24ct cladding 
The application form does repeatedly refer to the semi-transparent membrane as ‘guaranteed’, though I couldn’t find reference to a specific product in the planning application documents, or sample of what the final appearance may be.
That’s early on in section 4, “The Site/Property” so I think just giving background information. The application form ticked the ‘no’ box to section 9 “Is vehicle parking relevant to this proposal?”, which I think is correct for a shop front design change, as you suggest.
One further detail is that the planning application form says that pre-application advice was sought, but doesn’t detail the officer. It would seem unusual to get such an outright rejection if pre-application advice had been sought and respected - this is addressed in the decision notice:
On this particular application pre-application advice was sought and advice was given regarding the proposal being unacceptable. No discussions took place during the consideration of the application as it was considered that further discussions would be unnecessary for all parties.
I guess the big unknown here is what the planning department would find acceptable given the current state.
1 Like
Living next to this bacofoil palace, what infuriates me is that despite years of the council failing to address JK’s neighbours’ very reasonable complaints about how this place operates, the only thing they’ve taken action on is the shopfront?
Yes, it looks a bit pants. But far more problematic are the highly-dangerous parking issues, the thundering bass, the antisocial behaviour, the ineffective door staff/marshals, the abusive manager, the 3am-7-days-a-week license, the broken glass on the pavements, and the memorable guest I witnessed ‘relieving themselves’ in the entranceway to my building (chatting on her phone throughout, which was actually pretty impressive).
I’ll never forget how they spoke to me and my neighbours at a Lewisham Council meeting regarding the late-night loud music and sound leakage from their sound system. “Maybe your houses are not built properly. You don’t like the noise? Close your windows. It’s simple. Don’t be stupid.” 
So maybe when they’re doing up their facade, they can renovate their attitude to their neighbours while they’re at it?
14 Likes
I gather this building has operated as a function hall for a very long time if the many stories found on local forums are true. So despite their rudeness and lack of empathy, the owners have history on their side. They came before the flats and it would be for the developer/builder to accommodate them. I recall a past discussion about the construction of those flats, and in planning concerns were raised about the impact of noise albeit relating to the railway.
It sucks. But it falls under caveat emptor. Buyers beware.
I don’t know much about licensing regulations… but I wonder if you have recourse under this, or when the license comes up for review/renewal? I don’t think councils (anywhere) like anecdotal information. If you and other residents want action it may be worthwhile ensuring that all infractions around public nuisance and public safety are recorded. I saw advice from one civil society to complain to Crime Enforcement and Regulation (ces@lewisham.gov.uk) and copied to Licensing (licensing@lewisham.gov.uk). When appropriate complain to the police such as if someone is urinating in your doorway.
So hopefully when the next opportunity comes up to address this there is a historical record.
Other than for four specific days of the year, there license if only to 2am.
1 Like
Of course, and I know our flats aren’t loved by the community, I appreciate that. Also that they’ve been there longer, and that counts for something. But I don’t think it excuses the stuff that can go on until 2am (my mistake, but still too late for a weeknight). Unfortunately businesses have to flex with an area as it develops just as residents need to make reasonable allowances. It can’t just continue to operate at odds with its immediate community and be excused because of provenance.
3 Likes
I completely agree, but I think it’s the council who must have a reasonable plan and joined up approach to developing an area. I see others commenting that planning and licence/traffic enforcement are separate issues, but that’s just not good enough in my opinion.
If planning permission was granted for City Walk or whatever other nearby apartments and hotel developments (also see the old portacabin site, recently sold MOT station, Waldram Park Hotel, and failed 66 room hotel development), there must be a plan that goes with it to curtail late licences associated with parking problems and antisocial behaviour.
Otherwise it is just creating problems and an unhappy community.
2 Likes
Bacofoil Palace 
… to me its like if C3PO became an architect after Star Wars.
Totally agree on the anti social parking/behaviour and I only have to walk through it luckily.
4 Likes
What is the crux of the complaint? That the venue can operate until 2am?
In which case both the venue and City Walk should have sufficient noise insulation measures to mitigate the issue. For the former, it is required by the license and for the latter will have been required to gain planning. There is no reason that the two cannot coexist.
I don’t particularly like JK Banquets for the reasons already given, and like Chamonix I only have to walk through the marijuana smoke. But, the venue can also be important to the community providing a sizeable space for all sorts of events. What else in the area provides this?
So perhaps the crux of the complaint is the current operator. And perhaps that is that is where efforts are focused.