Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Brixton chitter chatter and news and updates (Feb-Aug 2011)

Status
Not open for further replies.
A new planning application has been lodged for the bomb site at 85 Brixton Hill/Josephine Avenue

Seems to be about the 15th attempt by the owner, in a battle dating back to the 1980s.

I am unqualified to judge the merit of the latest plans, but it would be nice to see that plot tidied up.
 
A new planning application has been lodged for the bomb site at 85 Brixton Hill/Josephine Avenue

Seems to be about the 15th attempt by the owner, in a battle dating back to the 1980s.

I am unqualified to judge the merit of the latest plans, but it would be nice to see that plot tidied up.

Being a resident in the block next to this space I agree it would be good for it to be cleaned up and better use made of it but not as proposed by the developer involved. At the opposite end of the row is a modern extension that is completely out of keeping with the area and the proposal for the vacant space is for something far worse and with loads more small flats. The plans will again be objected to vigorously by the other owners in the block and it will be stopped once again leaving the block to be left as an eyesore. The developer/owner involved has no intention of participating in discussions about better ideas or even allowing it to be kept tidy. He's put up the ugly fence to prevent anyone caring for the area and keeping it nice. He thinks making it as unsightly as possible will help his cause but in reality is making the other owners dig their heels in more. Ridiculous standoff will continue.
 
This is the kind of situation that makes me think a tax on empty land would be a good idea.
 
Ah, the Biffa alarm clock! My gf missed it so much when she went to work abroad that I bought her this.

biffa.jpg
 
I've taken a look at the proposal for 85 Brixton Hill. The design follows the massing and front elevation of the neighbouring terrace exactly - the same facade height, roofline and rear extension.

85bhill-image.jpg

It has 6 floors instead of the 5 of the adjoining 6 - as shown in this section:

85bhill-section.jpg

They've crammed eight flats into it . A 1-bed and a studio in the basement. A 2-bed on the ground floor. Then 1-beds on the upper floors. They're pokey as hell, but given that the previous application got nine in the same envelope, this is an improvement.

That previous application was turned down because it was a)Seriously pokey b)Built on Rush Common land (a cycle storage shed) and c)Didn't look like its neighbouring building

b) and c) have been addressed in this application (the proposal now matches materials, finish and window arrangment on the main facades, the cycle storage is now fenced rather than built up)

a) has been partly addressed, by the reduction in number of flats and by the provision of a rather grim-looking open-air "amenity" space in the middle of the building on the top floor.

I'm currently checking flat sizes and provision against the UDP, as this is the only realistic way of opposing the development now. If they just matched the existing floor-to-floor heights and made it 5 flats, then they'd be humanely sized and it would sail through planning. Greedy fuckers.
 
Ah, the Biffa alarm clock! My gf missed it so much when she went to work abroad that I bought her this.

biffa.jpg

"This vehicle is reversing" has become part of my morning dreams. Thing is, LBL Environmental Health had rectified it all last year, and got them to agree to do it at more sensible times, I guess the manager has changed, so I need to contact EH again.
 
I'm currently checking flat sizes and provision against the UDP, as this is the only realistic way of opposing the development now. If they just matched the existing floor-to-floor heights and made it 5 flats, then they'd be humanely sized and it would sail through planning. Greedy fuckers.

The flats scrape past the London Plan minimum space standards. By fractions of a square meter in most cases. What stingey standards :(

To sum up, I don't think there are any strong material objections that can be made against the scheme. It's more pokey flats for singles/couples, with cramped layouts, narrow corridors, rooms without views, and low ceilings. But it's within the standards set by the Mayor and Lambeth. It matches its neighbouring buildings. I expect permission to be granted.
 
Might have missed it having been away a few days but did anyone mention the new 'hand car wash' going up in the old petrol station space outside the Barrier Block?
 
The flats scrape past the London Plan minimum space standards. By fractions of a square meter ... I expect permission to be granted.

Thanks for that excellent analysis. It's certainly greedy.

But at least it holds out the prospect of a real bombsite finally being smartened up.

This 'ridiculous stand-off' has gone on too long.
 
Being a resident in the block next to this space I agree it would be good for it to be cleaned up and better use made of it but not as proposed by the developer involved. At the opposite end of the row is a modern extension that is completely out of keeping with the area and the proposal for the vacant space is for something far worse and with loads more small flats. The plans will again be objected to vigorously by the other owners in the block and it will be stopped once again leaving the block to be left as an eyesore. The developer/owner involved has no intention of participating in discussions about better ideas or even allowing it to be kept tidy. He's put up the ugly fence to prevent anyone caring for the area and keeping it nice. He thinks making it as unsightly as possible will help his cause but in reality is making the other owners dig their heels in more. Ridiculous standoff will continue.

A new planning application has been lodged for the bomb site at 85 Brixton Hill/Josephine Avenue

Seems to be about the 15th attempt by the owner, in a battle dating back to the 1980s.

I am unqualified to judge the merit of the latest plans, but it would be nice to see that plot tidied up.

I've taken a look at the proposal for 85 Brixton Hill. The design follows the massing and front elevation of the neighbouring terrace exactly - the same facade height, roofline and rear extension.

View attachment 15785

It has 6 floors instead of the 5 of the adjoining 6 - as shown in this section:

View attachment 15786

They've crammed eight flats into it . A 1-bed and a studio in the basement. A 2-bed on the ground floor. Then 1-beds on the upper floors. They're pokey as hell, but given that the previous application got nine in the same envelope, this is an improvement.

That previous application was turned down because it was a)Seriously pokey b)Built on Rush Common land (a cycle storage shed) and c)Didn't look like its neighbouring building

b) and c) have been addressed in this application (the proposal now matches materials, finish and window arrangment on the main facades, the cycle storage is now fenced rather than built up)

a) has been partly addressed, by the reduction in number of flats and by the provision of a rather grim-looking open-air "amenity" space in the middle of the building on the top floor.

I'm currently checking flat sizes and provision against the UDP, as this is the only realistic way of opposing the development now. If they just matched the existing floor-to-floor heights and made it 5 flats, then they'd be humanely sized and it would sail through planning. Greedy fuckers.

Is that the bit of land facing onto Brixton Hill?

My friend used to own most of the house on the end. Had to get rid of it after living there over 30 years because whoever owned that bit of land was trying to get £10,000 off him (party wall issues) or propping his property up or something. He couldn't afford it though.

He bought the whole house in the 70s for little over £20k but sold the top floors off over time
 
Might have missed it having been away a few days but did anyone mention the new 'hand car wash' going up in the old petrol station space outside the Barrier Block?
I've already mentioned it - they've been working on it for some time and have swathed the site in concrete and added another Statag-esque run of high security fencing.

Edit to add: they've just crowned it with a really tacky plastic sign, put up at a wonky angle. Goes a treat with the illegal billboard.

(do they need planning permission for a big street sign?)
 
Must have missed it over the weekend then. I was driving past (well in the queue) as they were balancing precariously up a ladder trying to beat the sign into submission.
 
Must have missed it over the weekend then. I was driving past (well in the queue) as they were balancing precariously up a ladder trying to beat the sign into submission.
They way they erected that sign was pure comedy. I took some pics because it was such a hilariously incompetent bodge job. I'll post them tomorrow.
 
Several fire brigade engines were in Electric Lane between CHL and Electric Avenue at about 12:30 this afternoon. The road was taped off and ladders were put up onto the roof above the Arcade entrance.

Everyone seemed quite cheerful about it, and there was no smoke.

Maybe one of those cherry foxes went a-roamin' and got stuck somewhere.
 
I don't like the sound of that thunderstorm out there... rain's not too nice either.

Nice to see the idiot standing up on the roof across the road with an umbrella watching it...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom