I’m intrigued by this makeover of JK Banquets - I have no recollection of what was in this shop before it became a more impressive entrance to the banquet hall. Does anyone else? I also wonder if they’re giving the inside a facelift because my memory from the general election hustings was that it was pretty run down.
It was the ironing shop and then an African christian organisation with an acronym for a name, as I recall.
The ‘shop’ for some time just had furniture and decorations for the hall.
I checked Lewisham planning and it doesn’t look as if planning was sought for a new shop front.
I am pretty certain it used to be a snooker hall a long time ago.
Good point re planning permission Jason…
I always thought it was a front for money laundering. Given the antics and the amount of weed I smell outside the place I wouldn’t be surprised anyway…
I think whatever money they used for the shop front would have been better spent arranging some parking…
It was CARESDEV
That’s the bunny. Thanks.
It certainly belies its rock ‘n’ roll and pop music heritage, with bands like The Rolling Stones, The Who, The Kinks, The Yardbirds, Dusty Springfield and Cilla Black all playing there back in the good ol’ days.
There are a few flyers knocking around online with said bands on there.
Never thought I’d see something FH labelled “grand” in my lifetime.
When we first moved to Perry Vale, in 1997 the shop part was Keystone Computers, we got our first modem there!
Their window was painted with Keystone Cop cartoon characters. The snooker hall was still there, behind, through the doors into the banquet hall. And piazza dela cuccina was a French restaurant. There was a big, ancient, family run electrical shop opposite.
I’d never heard of this place before. Do you know what it was called back in its heyday?
Popped in last night for a nose … it’s quite amazing inside with the biggest chandeliers I have ever seen and tiling that is totally over the top! Surprised how big it is in side .
An early Rolling Stones contract
the contract between Derek Westwood and Eric Easton Ltd. for the Rolling Stones to perform for one evening at Glenlyn Ballroom, Forest Hill on January 3rd 1964, signed ‘D Westwood’ in blue ballpoint, together with a Glenlyn Ballrooms compliments slip, on which Derek Westwood has written ‘Bob, please find enclosed payment for Rolling Stones Friday 3rd January. They where excellent and so was business, Derek’ in blue ballpoint,
Can I suggest as many people as possible make comment to the council.
The parking when they have an event on is apocalyptic. Apparently pavements are for cars.
Unfortunately that has nothing to do with the retrospective application for the retention of the shopfront.
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?
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.
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.
DC/20/115784 was refused yesterday:
That’s the first time I’ve heard gold called a ‘poor quality material’.
In all honesty though, I like it’s quirkiness.
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.
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?
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.
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 (email@example.com) and copied to Licensing (firstname.lastname@example.org). 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.
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.
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.
Appeal W/20/3253832 was lodged yesterday over the refusal of the (retrospective) planning application on 16th April 2020.
Looks like it is going to stay gold for a while longer.
It’s a bit of an odd front to a shop and not to my taste but I don’t hate it. It’s something a bit different.
I’ve walked passed later in the evening when it’s been kicking out time and not seen any problems or heard anything.
That front is loads better than dilapidated shops.
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.
The full decision letter is here:
DC_20_115784-APPEAL_DECISION-974070.pdf (151.4 KB)
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.
How they keep their licence I have no idea…. Oh wait it involves the council doing something.
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…
Why on earth was a coach trying to turn left there
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
Never realised it was an actual route for them. I’ve never seen one go down there before.
There are weirdly several coach companies that use it. I’ve never understood it!
I’m amazed that place is allowed to continue trading its trouble all the way.
Is the post office car park open late in the evenings which is just up the road? If so I assume patrons could be directed that way.
In theory they’re supposed to be directed there and further down Perry Vale where there isn’t a massive blind corner. But it seems they’re not up for the walk. Or bothered about keeping their wing mirrors
Clarkes Coaches are based at Lower Sydenham. I suppose this is their standard route to the South Circular going west. I think they belong to National Express so maybe they do maintenance for other coach companies as well.
Out of interest, did you call the police about the noise and antisocial behaviour and if so, do you mind sharing how they responded?
(Edited because I’ve just twigged you’re talking about Tuesday night)
I didn’t call them, and I regret it. I just assumed the kids etc would disappear before the police arrived. Little did I know it was to continue until 3am.
We hadn’t had any issues with JKB for a while, since way before the pandemic. The parking etc was fairly well controlled by the time we went into lockdown and they had to close shop. But it would appear they’ve just not got all their ducks in a row yet. I hope it improves.
I kid you not, “JK Banquets” website states it’s “one of London’s most luxurious banqueting facilities – Through the tasteful blend of beauty and elegance, allow us to create an affair you and your guests will long remember.”
They certainly create “affairs” that neighbours will long remember. What a total pisstake
This department liases with Licencing - so let them know what you’re being forced to put up with on a regular basis.
Crime Enforcement and Regulation Service
We receive requests to investigate complaints of statutory nuisance, including noise.
Address: 9 HOLBEACH ROAD, LONDON, SE6 4TW
Telephone: 020 8314 7237
Opening hours: 9am–5pm Monday to Friday
If nothing else it sounds as if there is a danger of a serious accident if the guests of this venue are not forced to park properly and manage the behaviour of attendees, particularly young children.
I think they just need a reminder of how things were manaed pre-pandemic and how much more successful that was. It was much less of an issue in the “before” times after they worked with their neighbours to address soundproofing and parking.
The behaviour of the guests off-premises is not their responsibility to police, and with the very recent single exception, guests are often just loud rather than disruptive. But the parking situation isn’t great currently – I’m sure whoever’s car got mauled by the coach will be wondering why safer parking spots weren’t more clearly communicated…
According to your earlier post though -
“…big Merc that was jutting out into Perry Vale from the end of Waldram Place…” - the owner should have known better than to park like that.
Yes, completely. But if you’re not familiar with an area and you pitch up to see everyone else has filled up the street directly outside the venue (and you’re not made aware of the MASSIVE car park a bit further up, or the fact that buses and coaches regularly squeeze round that awkward bend) then maybe you just follow suit?
But, Fran, you’re cutting this driver too much slack cos that bit of parking was selfish or lazy or ignorant or all three!
I agree. You might not know where parking is but you know not to park your massive car on a busy junction.
We get that on our road, people park on the pavement and obstruct access to our drive. When challenged they often whine “where am I supposed to park?” Well, not there is the answer
When you drive to some places, they often have signs directing people to a car park (blue signs I think), I wonder if a few of those would be useful for this venue but also generally as it’s a useful car park anyway if you want to park in near FH centre and don’t want to use the Sainsbury’s car park or ‘quick parking bays’ on Dartmouth Road.
Awaits to be told signs are already there…
Ok ok they’re clearly an idiot, I was attempting to provide balance!
I know - but you’re clearly too kind (Nice way to be!)
I was not very kind to the children playing in the road last Wednesday at 2am.
shocking parking again near JK Banquets, last Sat night according to this image from Nextdoor.
According to Perry Vale police ‘a meeting’ will ensue. But why were these cars not all ticketed at the time?
I’ve seen something similar at livesey hall (not parking, but large numbers of cars parked in a way which affects others significantly). My theory is that no Civil Enforcement Officer would fancy the job of ticketing a load of cars where all the owers are likely at the same event a few yards away.
Catching someone who overstays in PV car park by 15 mins is much ‘lower hanging fruit’.
Google maps says there’s a big car park 250 yards away from JK banquet so why don’t they use that?
Because the pavement is less than 250 yards away
This has been a problem for years. So dangerous. And the staff don’t give a damn.
At a previous council/police/residents meeting, the owner of JKB was belligerent and inflexible. At the time, noise til 2am most nights of the week and their lack of soundproofing attracted complaints from locals. The owner angrily told the assembly of sleep-deprived neighbours, “If you don’t like the music, close your windows. Maybe your houses aren’t built properly.” This was after a hot summer where keeping windows closed and houses unventilated was impossible and actually, dangerous.
Part of the fallout from that meeting was the agreement that they employ a traffic director on busy nights. For the most part they’ve stuck to that – certainly this parking situation is less common now, and residents have had fewer incidents of parties continuing outside flats/houses at 3am. But we’ve still seen drinking, drugs and abysmal behaviour trickling (sometimes literally) down the street unsupervised and far from discouraged by any JKB staff. So yes, probably time for another meeting!
" a meeting will be held in January"
Why wait until after the Christmas and New Year party season when the problem is most acute?
That seems perfectly reasonable. Trying to organise then get people to attend a meeting with ten days to go til Christmas – when people are on leave/busy/out of town/avoiding events because of COVID gears – would be almost impossible. Better to wait til everyone’s back and free to attend.
This is key.
The owners of JKB have clearly demonstrated on numerous occasions that they and their staff are incapable of being able to control the anti-social behaviour of their clientelle, which, I understand, would put them in breach of the terms of their licence, hence, the licensing authority, given the weight of evidence, should surely revoke it?
Yep, we as residents took it to the noise and nuisance team at Lewisham and they were ineffective. Who grants the licensing and do complaints/challenges have to come from an official body?
JKB don’t sell alcohol on the premises, they just allow people to supply their own. They also have a very late night license, 7 days a week, which I believe was granted many years ago before the immediate area was quite so built-up. Their previous argument was “we were here first”, which unfortunately doesn’t stand up in the face of some of the behaviour we’ve witnessed in the last few years.
I still can’t get over the party they hosted earlier this year with the actual children playing in the road at 2am.
Under the Act there are four key licensing objectives:
1. prevention of crime and disorder
2. protection of children from harm
3. public safety
4. prevention of public nuisance.
When you make an application for a premises licence, you must show how your proposed activities will not adversely affect the licensing objectives.
Hard to see how JK are meeting any of these requirements…
The local authority has an obligation and target to provide a certain amount of housing, which they are under achieving at present, and their obligations extend to communities and people’s residential amenity.
JKB’s time in the place doesn’t trump residential amenity and it doesn’t give them carte blanche to operate in any way that suits them or their clientelle - they must always operate within licensing rules and guidelines, which they don’t. It’s now up to Lewisham to bring them into line - and, hopefully, this upcoming meeting will give them the evidence and ammunition they need to review and amend JKB’s licence accordingly.
Presumably, you guys will be trying to get one of the local councillors to attend the community meeting with Perry Vale Police?
Lewisham seems particularly poor at getting enforcement officers into the situation when it’s happening, to gather evidence first hand. If you wait until after the event, then the evidence is more difficult to gather together.
Presumably, the local police will have seen a lot of what’s been happening on numerous occasions - and they will be more than happy to tell the licensing dept what they’ve witnessed.
I’m not presuming that police have been in attendance or observed much.
I wrote to Andrea at Perry Vale police (see their tweet above) to suggest that this is not just a parking issue but that the police should ensure the licensing authority are be in attendance because of anti social behaviour and other issues mentioned here.
Perhaps if others also on this thread also write to the police this may make it more likely that licensing are involved.
Yes, getting as many people as possible to report anti social behaviour and other disturbances, including parking on pavements, will help. Apparently, even calling 101 can help to get the licensing dept involved.
Then there’s the Community Trigger -
Has anyone ever seen them issue tickets?
Do Lewisham officers ever work out of office hours?
The long-term solution might be valet parking, using the underused nearby car park. The council could help by making the car park more attractive to use e.g. having 24 hour security and cctv, and putting in a toilet.
According to my latest issue of ‘Lewisham Life’ delivered yesterday, the Council has £3 million for discretionary spending, according to the same ‘Lewisham life’ the Council is also particularly interested in helping ‘BAME-owned’ businesses.
Someone is probably going to tell me that the car park is owned by Network Rail, so nothing can be done. Well, a lot of work has been done on these issues by unpaid local professionals (architects, engineers, etc) who designed a Forest Hill town centre plan - which I believe has been sitting in someone’s in-tray at the Town Hall, for x years.
No-one seems to be putting the pieces together.
I would hate to see local Council Tax payers’ money being used to benefit a business owner who doesn’t seem to give a damn about his immediate neighbours or the wider community.
Who are you trying to influence to do this - Hopefully you have also written to either the council licensing or the police with your views and suggestions.