Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Brixton news, rumours and general chat

technical said:
I wouldn't disagree that the way they're presented is unlikely to get a very broad range of people to respond - but I actually think Lambeth are doing a reasonable job here. Planning is a complex process to a large extent - the way this is being done (other boroughs using same/similar formats as well) does present the underlying evidence and analysis as well as the 'visions' in a much better way than this was being done relatively recently.

That said - there's a bit of a gap between the evidence and their conclusions on several sites IMO.
Click to expand...
The subjective views included in the "evidence document" on the impact of some of the tall buildings at some of the sites (such as site 19 - the Norwood railway triangle, where a proposed tower block will be visible above the tree line from across Brockwell Park) are pretty outrageous.
 
Is there still a stall or shop selling upholstery/memory foam that they cut to size for you somewhere in Brixton?
Back in the day I think there was a place in Granville Arcade?
 
technical said:
I wouldn't disagree that the way they're presented is unlikely to get a very broad range of people to respond - but I actually think Lambeth are doing a reasonable job here. Planning is a complex process to a large extent - the way this is being done (other boroughs using same/similar formats as well) does present the underlying evidence and analysis as well as the 'visions' in a much better way than this was being done relatively recently.

That said - there's a bit of a gap between the evidence and their conclusions on several sites IMO.
Click to expand...
The gaps between evidence and conclusions are pretty critical. People read it and because it does not make sense, think it is beyond them.

I'm guessing that you know more than me about planning. Nevertheless, planning is not foreign to me and I'm close to two of the sites but did not comment because I was not sure what I was commenting on. A planning consultant I know described a couple of the proposals as so loose as to be able to be interpreted later as meaning almost anything Lambeth wanted.

Have they taken the info down already now that the consultation period is over or am I looking in the wrong place?
 
Rushy said:
The gaps between evidence and conclusions are pretty critical. People read it and because it does not make sense, think it is beyond them.

I'm guessing that you know more than me about planning. Nevertheless, planning is not foreign to me and I'm close to two of the sites but did not comment because I was not sure what I was commenting on. A planning consultant I know described a couple of the proposals as so loose as to be able to be interpreted later as meaning almost anything Lambeth wanted.

Have they taken the info down already now that the consultation period is over or am I looking in the wrong place?
Click to expand...
It was there when I looked this morning. Site allocations consultation

These are not firm proposals - they're site allocations. There has to be flexibility at this stage in the process as there are so many variables that can change - landowners change their minds or ownership changes, property prices fluctuate, planned infrastructure does/doesn't happen, nearby developments have an impact etc etc. If everything was nailed down at this stage and something along these lines went wrong, then there's a possibility that nothing would happen on the site concerned until the next iteration of the local plan. The allocations have to be 'justified' to use a planning term hence the underlying evidence so far, but there will always be a degree of interpretation involved - what would planning consultants and lawyers do otherwise? :) (and no, i'm not a consultant or a lawyer)

I think there's potential problems with several of the allocations (eg Knollys Yard, West Norwood High Street and the ones around St Thomas's hospital) but can't fault Lambeth's work to date. There is logic in what they're doing but IMO they're pushing the envelope in terms of impacts and what will be acceptable.
 
technical said:
It was there when I looked this morning. Site allocations consultation

These are not firm proposals - they're site allocations. There has to be flexibility at this stage in the process as there are so many variables that can change - landowners change their minds or ownership changes, property prices fluctuate, planned infrastructure does/doesn't happen, nearby developments have an impact etc etc. If everything was nailed down at this stage and something along these lines went wrong, then there's a possibility that nothing would happen on the site concerned until the next iteration of the local plan. The allocations have to be 'justified' to use a planning term hence the underlying evidence so far, but there will always be a degree of interpretation involved - what would planning consultants and lawyers do otherwise? :) (and no, i'm not a consultant or a lawyer)

I think there's potential problems with several of the allocations (eg Knollys Yard, West Norwood High Street and the ones around St Thomas's hospital) but can't fault Lambeth's work to date. There is logic in what they're doing but IMO they're pushing the envelope in terms of impacts and what will be acceptable.
Click to expand...
Cheers for the link. I was on another Lambeth commonplace page.
 
technical said:
Theres no firm development proposals, but this will allocate the site for that purpose in the local plan. New supermarket, smaller car park and flats on top yes.
Click to expand...
Same as wgat happened to sainsbury in nine elms then.
editor said:
Look at this chancer!

www.ebay.co.uk

colectabel road signs double sided to elephant and castle plus brixton | eBay

Find many great new & used options and get the best deals for colectabel road signs double sided to elephant and castle plus brixton at the best online prices at eBay! Free delivery for many products!
www.ebay.co.uk
Click to expand...
Has he got a bob marley way one listed there as well?
 
The seller has so many road signs for sale (and has sold in the past) that they either have a legitimate official source of discontinued signs or it's theft on an industrial scale. The lack of explanation on provenance does hint at the latter.
 
felonius monk said:
The seller has so many road signs for sale (and has sold in the past) that they either have a legitimate official source of discontinued signs or it's theft on an industrial scale. The lack of explanation on provenance does hint at the latter.
Click to expand...
Here's a classy one

www.ebay.co.uk

london transport sign disable parking only | eBay

Find many great new & used options and get the best deals for london transport sign disable parking only at the best online prices at eBay! Free delivery for many products!
www.ebay.co.uk
 
I assume that old ones go somewhere, is it possible he buys them? or more to the point, do they flog off old ones or just chuck them for legal reasons?
 
editor said:
Here's a classy one

www.ebay.co.uk

london transport sign disable parking only | eBay

Find many great new & used options and get the best deals for london transport sign disable parking only at the best online prices at eBay! Free delivery for many products!
www.ebay.co.uk
Click to expand...
These do actually get taken down for legitimate reasons when the person to whom a disabled bay is allocated dies or moves away.
But you might have thought local councils would have the nous to recycle them rather than ditch them - fairly sure the replacement cost will be substantially more than what this guy is selling them for.
 
lang rabbie said:
These do actually get taken down for legitimate reasons when the person to whom a disabled bay is allocated dies or moves away.
But you might have thought local councils would have the nous to recycle them rather than ditch them - fairly sure the replacement cost will be substantially more than what this guy is selling them for.
Click to expand...

....would they work if you wanted to reserve a nice big parking space outside your house ?

e2a....to deter other motorists rather than avoid getting a permit obvs.
 
technical said:
It was there when I looked this morning. Site allocations consultation

These are not firm proposals - they're site allocations. There has to be flexibility at this stage in the process as there are so many variables that can change - landowners change their minds or ownership changes, property prices fluctuate, planned infrastructure does/doesn't happen, nearby developments have an impact etc etc. If everything was nailed down at this stage and something along these lines went wrong, then there's a possibility that nothing would happen on the site concerned until the next iteration of the local plan. The allocations have to be 'justified' to use a planning term hence the underlying evidence so far, but there will always be a degree of interpretation involved - what would planning consultants and lawyers do otherwise? :) (and no, i'm not a consultant or a lawyer)

I think there's potential problems with several of the allocations (eg Knollys Yard, West Norwood High Street and the ones around St Thomas's hospital) but can't fault Lambeth's work to date. There is logic in what they're doing but IMO they're pushing the envelope in terms of impacts and what will be acceptable.
Click to expand...

On the two Loughborough Junction sites 22 and 23 I found a lot of fault with Lambeth's work.

Herne Hill Society and LJ Neighbourhood Forum are both objecting.

I've put my own objection in ( See LJ thread).

One major fault is lack of consultation. The draft policies were written prior to consultation. The consultation is the bare minimum required " statutory consultation"

I did email my Cllrs saying this is a Coop Council and the way officers have done this is not how a Coop council should work.

LJ Neighbourhood Forum are also objecting saying the same. Requests were made to be consulted which were ignored.

Write policy first then "consult" appears now to be seen as an option by some officers. Cllrs are to afraid to criticise how officers work to say anything. Anything at all.

Once agreed aspects of them will have planning weight so are firm proposals. If I owned the Sureways site in LJ I'd be falling over myself to support these proposals. They are charter for developer to make a profit on the site.

Reading the LJ draft Site Allocations and its all about what the planners want. Its not about local communities. Senior officers know best. And in my experience a disdain for residents who read up the docs and question them. I don't have a lot of respect for planners.

So ,on LJ perspective, I'd say I can fault the work they have done.
 
I wouldn't necessarily blame planners themselves, rather the function they are now expected to perform, and the policies they are expected to enact, which are decided at a higher level. This is all to do with housing targets that councils are expected to meet and also what is written in the London plan which throws out quite a few previous assumptions about what's acceptable in terms of density and building height, in zone 2/3 type areas of London. Planners at a LA level have less decision making power now than they used to, and are also generally hopelessly under resourced.

I'd say in reality what this site allocations thing is about, is testing out which parts of Lambeth the resistance to very tall buildings is going to be the strongest. They have recommended building heights that they know that most people will find completely out of proportion. Sadly it seems like it'll come down to which localities are best at mounting a strong resistance and the highest density developments will get dumped on those that manage less of a fuss. One feature of the Hardess site in LJ is that it largely backs onto a social housing block. If it was immediately adjacent to one of the more well to do streets just a little further up Herne Hill I'm sure there'd be a much greater level of outrage.
 
Last edited:
I've been sent this:
Any news about the current situation with Tulse Hill's wonderful Haircut
Sir?

I went for a haircut there 3 weeks ago, to find two men, maybe estate
agent, unlocking the door. They said cryptically there might be a change
of hands.

Every time I've gone past since then it's been closed, but without any
change to their usual website info.

Then this morning I saw 'Temporarily Closed' on the website. What's
happening?

Haircut Sir! is up there with all the other iconic Brixton area places
and I'm sure many are missing it badly, as I do. Always a great haircut
and a great chat.
Click to expand...

Any one know what's going on?
 
Went and had a quick look around the new climbing wall that's at based on the small industrial estate with Screwfix. The facility is amazing, absolutely huge. I highly recommend checking it out

Brixton – Substation
 

Attachments

  • PXL_20220226_134421624.MP.jpg
    PXL_20220226_134421624.MP.jpg
    217.3 KB · Views: 15
lang rabbie said:
There had not been a Facebook update since January.
View attachment 312067

But then last night someone posted :(
View attachment 312068
Click to expand...
Yes I miss them - actually the most diplomatic of my recent barbers.
I liked both of them.

Rumour is that Andrews top of Brixton Hill do similar gentleman's services - but apparently the pensioner price is £13, compared to Haircut Sir which was £8.
Taken with the 100% gas price rise this makes the 2.5% pension rise in April look a bit slow off the mark.
 
edcraw said:
Article on new Brixton Theatre & Hondo Tower in the Observer today.

www.theguardian.com

A tale of two buildings: Brixton House theatre and the Hondo Tower

The reincarnation of an old Brixton theatre aims to enrich the local community, while a flashier but controversial tower up the road promises jobs. So which project could deliver?
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
Click to expand...

Is the Hondo tower "flashier"? The writer prefers the Hondo tower architecturally to the design of the Theatre.

I do agree with the writer that design of the theatre is to dark. People mistake it for office block. It works OK in daytime but going past it in the night it does look uninviting. A mistake Imo for a building that is going to see a lot of evening use. Interesting that the new director of the theatre insisted on some colour on the staircase.

The repainted mural I saw was getting attention on Saturday night as its all lit up.

The article doesn't make distinction between Council owned site ( Somerleyton )and the Hondo owned site which is privately owned site.

The Somerleyton site shows how this New Labour Council fails.

It was going to a Council developed site of affordable housing, community facilities and the Theatre Co designed with the local population.

After a good start this fell by the wayside. The good officer in charge decided to get new job in Camden.Idont blame him.

The Theatre was not funded by the Council. The Council did give them a cheap lease. I hope the Council havemade sure the lease is watertight on community benefits. And won't end up with the situation of the Ritzy.

What the article misses out on is the effect that this long standing Labour Council has on development/ gentrification.

The Hondo tower planning application for instance should never have got through planning. It did so because of this Council obession with working with developers.

Take the latest. Pop site and International House. There is no need to sell off International house. Which is functioning well providing Council a small income and letting out affordable workspace.

So Imo the article doesn't include the effect a local authority can have on "regeneration"

Certainly on Somerleyton Road it has failed to deliver. Despite promises.
 
lang rabbie said:
There had not been a Facebook update since January.
View attachment 312067

But then last night someone posted :(
View attachment 312068
Click to expand...
Charlie once told me that it had been a barbers since Edwardian times at least - and that behind the 1950s interior there is an ornate wooden mantle with heavy cut glass mirrors. I seem to remember he also said that those fittings had been moved over from their original home at 5 Tulse Hill - which is now part of Baba Chemists. Does anyone know more? I might search through Kelly's if I have time later today.

It's a great shame they're gone. The Haralambous family have been cutting hair there for nearly 50 years.

E2A: Just peered through windows and can confirm the interior has been stripped back to the walls. No Edwardian features revealed yet though.

E2A (again): Kelly's has no barbers along that strip in the period it covers - i.e. up to WWI. Nos 3 and 5 were provision merchants, confectioners and stationers during their early years.
 
Last edited:
Gramsci said:
On the two Loughborough Junction sites 22 and 23 I found a lot of fault with Lambeth's work.

Herne Hill Society and LJ Neighbourhood Forum are both objecting.

I've put my own objection in ( See LJ thread).

One major fault is lack of consultation. The draft policies were written prior to consultation. The consultation is the bare minimum required " statutory consultation"

I did email my Cllrs saying this is a Coop Council and the way officers have done this is not how a Coop council should work.

LJ Neighbourhood Forum are also objecting saying the same. Requests were made to be consulted which were ignored.

Write policy first then "consult" appears now to be seen as an option by some officers. Cllrs are to afraid to criticise how officers work to say anything. Anything at all.

Once agreed aspects of them will have planning weight so are firm proposals. If I owned the Sureways site in LJ I'd be falling over myself to support these proposals. They are charter for developer to make a profit on the site.

Reading the LJ draft Site Allocations and its all about what the planners want. Its not about local communities. Senior officers know best. And in my experience a disdain for residents who read up the docs and question them. I don't have a lot of respect for planners.

So ,on LJ perspective, I'd say I can fault the work they have done.
Click to expand...
In an ideal world there would be meaningful consultation with communities to develop ideas about what will be built, where and what it would look like - but after 12 years of austerity I don't think any local planning authority is resourced enough to be able to even try this let alone achieve it - it would cost too much and simply take too long. Never mind an inner-London one that has huge development pressure, massive housing targets and plenty of developers and landowners that are constantly bringing forward speculative proposals that often undermine wider objectives.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

editor
Homophobia in Brixton
2
Replies
38
Views
4K
Tulster218
T
editor
It's a grim Christmas around Brixton: no lights, no tree and no funfair
Replies
1
Views
655
skyscraper101
skyscraper101
editor
Where to watch England vs Spain Euro 2024 final in Brixton
Replies
6
Views
394
madolesance
M
story
Palestine support action in Brixton
Replies
23
Views
1K
8ball
8ball
K
House prices in Brixton
Replies
18
Views
2K
Shippou-Sensei
Shippou-Sensei
Back
Top Bottom