Archived on 6/5/2022

2 Church Rise progress

anon64893700
20 May '16

I have a habit of being nosey when it comes to new developments around the local streets, #2 on Church Rise being no exception.

Progress is finally being made, so here is a “through the keyhole” glimpse of things to come.

It’s exciting to see that the plot at 25 Church Rise has also been cleared. Will it finally get a building back on it?

thirstforwine
21 May '16

3 posts were split to a new topic: 25 Church Rise plot

anon64893700
25 May '16

Another little “through the keyhole” update. Starting to give an idea of what it is going to look like now (loosely speaking)


Will actually be exciting to see this complete and another plot back to full use.

anon64893700
28 May '16

Quick update, starting to look like a house a bit now.

anon5422159
28 May '16

It looks like a really attractive style. I’m so glad people are still building characterful houses in SE23

anon64893700
28 May '16

The front promised to be a period restoration, which it seems on course for, the back however I believe will be VERY modern.

Nice to see a little character saved .

anon64893700
29 May '16

Just realised the building now peeps over the hoarding. Gives an idea of size.

anon64893700
3 Jun '16

Up a bit more. And if you look closely there is a cheeky little fox photo bombing the picture.

anon64893700
15 Jun '16

Slow and steady progress. Looking nice so far.

Londondrz
15 Jun '16

That is looking really good. The building standards seem to be very good. Quite a clean site as well which is good to see.

anon64893700
15 Jun '16

Will have to pester my neighbour to get a look around the back to see how that’s looking.
It does seem to be taking shape nicely with a genuine reproduction look, unlike #6.
Excited to see it all done and revealed. Less so looking forward to the extra residents for the street lol

anon64893700
2 Sep '16

Getting there

anon5422159
2 Sep '16

Whilst it’s still a beautiful looking building, it’s a travesty they’re painting over all the bricks and stonework - do you know if that’s permanent, or maybe some protective layer they’re using during the construction?

anon64893700
2 Sep '16

It is in keeping with the original building there. Almost identical in fact so far. True to their word.

anon64893700
30 Aug '17

All done.

Looks grand now, which goes to show there are still some good builders out there.

starman
30 Aug '17

@anon64893700 your link isn’t working.

anon64893700
30 Aug '17

Doh, was meant to be a picture. Hold on.

RachaelDunlop
30 Aug '17

Jesus wept, that’s hideous. Sorry, but architecturally the proportions on the upper level are all wrong. And to be in keeping, it should either be painted on the ground level only or not at all.

starman
30 Aug '17

Out of interest Is this a detached, semi-detached or a MURB*?

The paint is really off putting. Why hide the beautiful brickwork? All the features disappear into a wall of white like the arched lintels and columns. The only reason to paint a house such as this is to renew the appearance of the render. I don’t see render here.

#failbutstillbetterthanmost

  • MURB = multi-unit residential building in Merkan.
anon5422159
30 Aug '17

Underneath the paint (from @anon64893700’s earlier photo):

So much more attractive. But interesting to know it was painted in its previous incarnation - perhaps this was a demand from the planners then, for continuity?

anon64893700
30 Aug '17

@starman

The construction of a two storey plus lower ground floor and roof space building at 2 Church Rise SE23 to provide 2 one-bedroom self-contained flats, 5 two bedroom self-contained flats and 1 three bedroom self-contained flat, together with the provision of 3 car parking spaces, 14 bicycle spaces and refuse/recycling stores.

http://planning.lewisham.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=_LEWIS_DCAPR_81361

anon64893700
30 Aug '17

Original building

Londondrz
30 Aug '17

Pretty close to replicating it. Apart from the bloody dreadful extension.

RachaelDunlop
30 Aug '17

Just because the original was painted, doesn’t mean the replacement had to be. And if painted, they should have done the same and made the brick cream, leaving the stonework white for contrast.

Making it double fronted with the gabled roof in the middle is what offends me architecturally. i don’t doubt it’s what the planners allowed, but aesthetically it looks all wrong to me.

anon64893700
30 Aug '17

Oh the extension!! lol

Londondrz
30 Aug '17

It looks OK without paint, with paint, not so much. The bay windows really dont help the building.

anon64893700
30 Aug '17

I remember sitting down with @Michael and Hillary discussing this whole plan with the original developer way back. To be fair, from the description and drawings shown, it has stayed true to plan from the offset.

Would be interesting to see what others think of the white.

starman
30 Aug '17

From the design statement in the planning application.

image

It is interesting that this statement suggest the “colour” is a modern addition. But the appearance section of the application clearly notes the brick and brick accents will be painted in a Farrow and Ball white. So I guess they lived up to the approved plan.

image

Oh well.

RachaelDunlop
30 Aug '17

That’s exactly what I feel they didn’t do. The gable was always on the end, not slap bang in the middle.

starman
30 Aug '17

The design statement is an interesting read and discusses this against the vernacular on the street. Doesn’t make it right though.

anon30031319
22 Feb '18

All finished, and properties up to let via KFH at the moment.

Not bad little spaces, although a little characterless without any furniture in there at the moment,.

Much nicer when furnished for sure.