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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
The appeals look to have been successful, both for ‘Appeal A’ against DC/20/115784 - the retrospective planning application for the change for frontage, and for ‘Appeal B’ against DC/20/115785 which applied to add a semi-transparent membrane to the gold frontage to lessen it’s impact and make it acceptable.
So I guess it’s staying gold, but perhaps a bit less mirror-like if the membrane is added.
A little birdy told me that there was quite the celebration on Tuesday evening with patrons who wouldn’t have been out of place on a popular Channel 4 documentary series. Anyone got any gossip?
Making no judgement on the patrons or TV shows, but whoever and whatever, it was quite the event. Drinking, bottle-throwing and p*ssing in the street in full daylight. Definite drug-taking, copious alcohol consumption, and apparently a death-wish as some kids stood in the street seemingly challenging oncoming traffic.
A personal highlight was the 11-12yr olds loudly shrieking and playing in the middle of Perry Vale road at 2am. I don’t normally confront, but since they were actual children completely unattended in the middle of a fast road, I screamed at them so loudly my own window rattled. They did run off, but the older lot were doing God knows what in the underpass until basically 4am.
Also it appears JKB’s parking attendants are all self-isolating indefinitely since it looks like it’s Park On The Pavement Night this evening.
yes we were going past there around 8.30pm on tuesday and there was a group of little boys about 10 years old suited up like wedding guests pushing each other into the road in the path of oncoming traffic. loads of Vans parked up on the pavement and guests standing around drinking in the street.
looked like a audition for the Jeremy Kyle show.
Oh dear. I meant for this post to be somewhat tongue in cheek but it’s quite obvious that the problem isn’t a laughing matter. A handful of business on Perry Vale also suffered from the antics from what I’ve heard. Shameful that the police did nothing about it as well.
More fun from the JK crew tonight, with zero parking control causing an absolute mess. Perry Vale parked up (badly) with loads of cars, including one parked terribly on the corner by Pantry, which promptly got a chunk taken out of it by a National Express bus trying and failing to get past it. Then a huge angry crowd rounding on the poor driver in protest…and a fully backed-up Perry Vale soon after. Welcome back, JK Banquets, as you were…
To be fair, it was turning right, and – inexplicably – this is part of one of the NE routes. Stupid, yes. To be expected by a business that regularly holds big events that require guest parking, also yes.
The car that got hit was a big Merc that was jutting out into Perry Vale from the end of Waldram Place. So
… to me its like if C3PO became an architect after Star Wars.