Brixton news, rumour and general chat - October 2016
- Thread starter SpamMisery
- Start date
- Status
Nanker Phelge
Leave the gun. Take the cannoli.
What's that got to do with the Ritzy staff's strike?
Nanker Phelge
Leave the gun. Take the cannoli.
cuppa tee
Well-Known Member
just realised this is the home of GGAP who run a summer playscheme that gives kids a place to go in the long summer break and also helps parents who can't take the full holiday off themselves.... the council wankers should be ashamed.
editor
hiraethified
I was just talking to Betty (who used to run the Art Noveau cafe). Her kids now have to sit outside her work because the playground has closed. It's a fucking disgrace.
They've already installed showers for the 'property guardians' (i.e. people paying rent with no rights whatsoever) in Dexter's playground.
bimble
floofy
Yes they should.
It's a complete disgrace, not just what they're doing but how they've been doing it too.
It's been breathtakingly underhand and insultingly dishonest all the way.
The first meeting that was held there (at grove adventure playground) was announced like this, as if the council wanted our input to help them "regenerate' the playground, make it better.
![IMG_0839[1].JPG](https://www.urban75.net/forums/data/attachments/93/93523-2b35318f6733642a39b1be2cf210874c.jpg "IMG_0839[1].JPG")
Next they printed this, after their consultation event, which has at least two lies in it.
Only now have they openly stated what the plan is - no more playground at all, that gets demolished, instead they are looking for a buyer for the land in order to build a block of flats.
snowy_again
Slush
Ratray Road earlier
T & P
|-o-| (-o-) |-o-|
That's a nicely put request. I hope they get it back.
Ratray Road earlier
Ironically, when people leave stuff out to be taken, it is days before anyone does, even if you put a note stressing it is free to a good home.
editor
hiraethified
Do you fancy writing a piece for Buzz about all these shenanigans? Be good to bring the council to account....
brixtonblade
Well-Known Member
The letter on the gates wasn't particularly illuminating
bimble
floofy
Thanks, yes , that would be a start wouldn't it. I've been feeling a bit at a loss what to do with my anger and collected evidence of what has gone on here re the playground, struggling to find a way to even hope that anything can be done. trying to put it all succinctly in one piece of writing that would help focus at least cheers.
Last edited:
bimble
floofy
brixtonblade have you got the email address given at the bottom of that letter please? (can't make it out)
brixtonblade
Well-Known Member
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
At the Loughborough Junction Neighbourhood Planning Forum meetings I kept on bringing up the fact that the results of the consultation on the LJ masterplan were disputed. That most people did not think that there tables ( we were split into groups to discuss the masterplan proposals) were supportive of moving/ losing the Adventure playground. As those here who follow LJ threads will know. (The final draft masterplan does not even categorically promise an alternative site for adventure playground.)
The Officer kept on saying he would go back to Fluid re the disputed results and report back. ( Fluid are the consultation consultants for the Council. And I am not blaming them. The consultants work for the Council. How the Council interpret the results is not up to Fluid) . This kept on being put off to next meeting. Nice enough officer who usually attends the meetings but junior. Basically we were getting fobbed off. No answer on this so we , at the Planning Forum, were unable to have a proper discussion on this. Despite promises. Another Council tactic. Just do not answer the query.
The Council other response at meetings was the "nothing has been decided yet on the playground" and so people voicing fears that the playground may go were making a fuss over nothing.
Then draft masterplan has no adventure playground.
It could be said that in the present circumstances the Council needs to look at how it delivers non statutory services for young people. Fair enough. In which case it needs to have a transparent and open debate.
I said more than once at the LJ Planning Forum that if the Council decides to close and sell off the land then that is its decision. It owns the land. What I objected to was trying to make the consultation make it look like this had residents support. If there is a difference of opinion then that should be recorded.
Last edited:
editor
hiraethified
Not only will it hopefully be cathartic for you, it will also make sure that the shit Lambeth are inflicting on communities is faithfully recorded for the future, and - with a bit of luck - will come back to haunt the fuckers responsible.
At the very least, it will guarantee that a lot more people get to hear about what they've done.
teuchter
je suis teuchter
There's a messy muddying of the waters here, because a masterplan is usually guidance on what a planning authority will/won't be likely to approve in terms of development on specific (privately owned) sites.
So, it can be referred to when making decisions about whether a private landowner's proposals to develop should be allowed.
But in this case lots of the bits of land are owned by Lambeth. So they are both the ones with the authority to make planning decisions and the ones with financial interests in what happens.
In theory a masterplan shouldn't really have regard for what would be financially desirable for the landowners to do. And so, in theory at least, it shouldn't be within the remit of the masterplanners to decide what happens to a site where the landowner (in this case Lambeth) can't afford to keep it going in its current use. The masterplan should just be looking at what's an appropriate use for a site.
It seems to me that those two things aren't being kept separate here, or at least, they are being presented in a way that looks like the council is making masterplanning decisions based on what's financially convenient for itself rather than based simply on what makes sense town-planning wise.
This certainly seems an example of why making local authorities fund themselves - through trying to sweat their assets - instead of just funding them properly from central government is a terrible idea. Folk need to be shouting at Theresa May as well as Lambeth. More so than at Lambeth, I'd say.
So, it can be referred to when making decisions about whether a private landowner's proposals to develop should be allowed.
But in this case lots of the bits of land are owned by Lambeth. So they are both the ones with the authority to make planning decisions and the ones with financial interests in what happens.
In theory a masterplan shouldn't really have regard for what would be financially desirable for the landowners to do. And so, in theory at least, it shouldn't be within the remit of the masterplanners to decide what happens to a site where the landowner (in this case Lambeth) can't afford to keep it going in its current use. The masterplan should just be looking at what's an appropriate use for a site.
It seems to me that those two things aren't being kept separate here, or at least, they are being presented in a way that looks like the council is making masterplanning decisions based on what's financially convenient for itself rather than based simply on what makes sense town-planning wise.
This certainly seems an example of why making local authorities fund themselves - through trying to sweat their assets - instead of just funding them properly from central government is a terrible idea. Folk need to be shouting at Theresa May as well as Lambeth. More so than at Lambeth, I'd say.
bimble
floofy
Yes.
If they had just come out with it from the start, clearly stated that this (the adventure playground in LJ) is the biggest piece of land that the council own in the area, and that they need to sell it for cash, that would have been a help, or at least it would have been honest.
Instead the pretence has been long and ugly.
This was never remotely about 'regenerating' the playground, it was always about demolishing it and selling it to a developer.
Not even the woman who managed the adventure playground had a clue, she was telling me that they had a long lease agreement with lambeth and she was expecting improvements to the facilities, the building which was really cold inside in the winter etc.
Last edited:
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
I met Betty on Sunday at the Stand Up to Lambeth Council banner and effigy-making workshop. A lovely person who - like too many Lambeth residents - has been pushed to the end of her tether by the council fucking around.
bimble
floofy
i agree with you mostly, they are totally attempting to conflate what is in their interest (the local council which is strapped for cash) and what is in our interest (people who live here).
But I think Theresa may be a bit busy just now, trying to charm the ukip crowd.
Who apart from her do you think might be the best inboxes to aim for?
Last edited:
editor
hiraethified
I've given it a plug on Buzz and credited you for the pic - I hope that's OK?
Ratray Road earlier
Have you seen the Hot Air Balloon Framed Drawing from Ratray Road, Brixton?
#keepempeeled
Not exactly their target demographic, but I know which I'd prefer to see on a poster.
discobastard
Well-Known Member
Last time I looked (which was yesterday, as well as several times over the last 3-4 months) towards the top of the up escalator on the right hand side there were pictures of burgers with gravy being poured onto them. Did they change them today?
editor
hiraethified
No idea, but the one I saw today caught my eye because it only showed drinks. The fact that they have to keep advertising there suggests that they may be suffering the same curse that affected every other business in that space (apart from Kaff, of course).
Maharani
Just like Heaven
Must cost a shit load to advertise here.
- Status
Similar threads
