Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Brixton news, rumours and general chat

In the end, I went through and shredded only the papers with my details on. Task not yet finished as the cheapo shredder was getting very hot...
 
teuchter said:
Where tall is acceptable is clearly now in lots of places where it wasn't previously, I'd say. Or at least "not tall" has been redefined.

One thing that appears to be being redefined is what existing neighbourhoods actually are. Places that most people would agree are not (at least until now) really inner city urban (and hence subject to different expectations about things like amount of daylight) seem to be being re-designated.

It's only really inevitable if a political decision has been made that this is how additional housing capacity is to be provided. That decision's been made as far as I can see, and it's certainly influenced by what the market supports even if in theory it doesn't have to be driven by it.
Click to expand...
Well I suppose you're right in that quite a few areas across London have been designated for growth - Vauxhall/Nine Elms, Elephant & Castle, Stratford, Old Oak Common etc. Higher densities in these areas are supposed to be the most efficient and sustainable use of land, aided by good public transport accessibility and helping to deliver the extra homes London needs. The intentions are good but the delivery has been patchy to say the least.

Part of the problem is people don't like change, and particularly on the scale seen in Vauxhall. I'm not at all keen on what has happened there due to the mish mash of design and heights, but the drivers behind it are sound even if the execution of it has been all over the place.
 
technical said:
Well I suppose you're right in that quite a few areas across London have been designated for growth - Vauxhall/Nine Elms, Elephant & Castle, Stratford, Old Oak Common etc. Higher densities in these areas are supposed to be the most efficient and sustainable use of land, aided by good public transport accessibility and helping to deliver the extra homes London needs. The intentions are good but the delivery has been patchy to say the least.

Part of the problem is people don't like change, and particularly on the scale seen in Vauxhall. I'm not at all keen on what has happened there due to the mish mash of design and heights, but the drivers behind it are sound even if the execution of it has been all over the place.
Click to expand...
Im more bothered that a large area of London that could have been used to house working class Londoners (in the middle of a housing crisis that everyone now admits exists) has been turned into an area of shiny flats for the wealthy who do not have housing problems, or for foreign investors who want to make money out of our housing market or to hide dodgy riches.
 
technical said:
Well I suppose you're right in that quite a few areas across London have been designated for growth - Vauxhall/Nine Elms, Elephant & Castle, Stratford, Old Oak Common etc. Higher densities in these areas are supposed to be the most efficient and sustainable use of land, aided by good public transport accessibility and helping to deliver the extra homes London needs. The intentions are good but the delivery has been patchy to say the least.

Part of the problem is people don't like change, and particularly on the scale seen in Vauxhall. I'm not at all keen on what has happened there due to the mish mash of design and heights, but the drivers behind it are sound even if the execution of it has been all over the place.
Click to expand...
It's not limited to those areas though. High rise is increasingly being pushed on smaller sites in areas that so far have no high rise development at all.

Here in Loughborough Junction we've got a 16 storey tower under construction, and because it's inbetween railway lines some argument can be made that things like overshadowing neighbouring properties or fitting in with street scenes don't really apply. But that development is at a density way beyond what was in the old London Plan for that kind of location. Permission was given on the basis of increased density being allowed in the new London Plan (at that point only in draft form) but also by claiming that it was effectively part of Brixton town centre (it blatantly isn't).

Then more recently we had an application for 25 storey towers on an adjacent site. This is right next to 3-storey terraces (not separated from them by a railway line or similar). The daylight report noted that it would cut out light to those houses to an extent that simply isn't considered acceptable outside of a zone which is already subject to high-density, high-rise development. 10 years ago I'm pretty sure there'd be no way this would be given permission. You might have expected a 3 storey building with 4th floor set back, or something like that. That application was actually turned down, but it looks like we'll eventually see something tall get built there. Lambeth's idea of what would be acceptable for that site is stated in their draft site allocations thing that's currently being consulted on, and I'm pretty sure it would have effects on daylighting that would not have been considered acceptable under the 'old' regime.

I'm not especially arguing for or against an increase in high rise ... it may be justified in some cases. Mainly my point is that over the past decade something has very significantly changed in terms of what's considered an acceptable height in those predominantly low-rise and residential parts of london such as Brixton and around. It's not just happening in places like Nine Elms or Elephant.
 
teuchter said:
It's not limited to those areas though. High rise is increasingly being pushed on smaller sites in areas that so far have no high rise development at all.

Here in Loughborough Junction we've got a 16 storey tower under construction, and because it's inbetween railway lines some argument can be made that things like overshadowing neighbouring properties or fitting in with street scenes don't really apply. But that development is at a density way beyond what was in the old London Plan for that kind of location. Permission was given on the basis of increased density being allowed in the new London Plan (at that point only in draft form) but also by claiming that it was effectively part of Brixton town centre (it blatantly isn't).

Then more recently we had an application for 25 storey towers on an adjacent site. This is right next to 3-storey terraces (not separated from them by a railway line or similar). The daylight report noted that it would cut out light to those houses to an extent that simply isn't considered acceptable outside of a zone which is already subject to high-density, high-rise development. 10 years ago I'm pretty sure there'd be no way this would be given permission. You might have expected a 3 storey building with 4th floor set back, or something like that. That application was actually turned down, but it looks like we'll eventually see something tall get built there. Lambeth's idea of what would be acceptable for that site is stated in their draft site allocations thing that's currently being consulted on, and I'm pretty sure it would have effects on daylighting that would not have been considered acceptable under the 'old' regime.

I'm not especially arguing for or against an increase in high rise ... it may be justified in some cases. Mainly my point is that over the past decade something has very significantly changed in terms of what's considered an acceptable height in those predominantly low-rise and residential parts of london such as Brixton and around. It's not just happening in places like Nine Elms or Elephant.
Click to expand...
I'm not disagreeing with you - but unless something significant happens with population growth (not impossible given Brexit and everything else) and everyone agrees that building on the green belt away from public transport is okay, then greater density and therefore height is absolutely necessary to provide homes in London (putting aside leaving things to the market, where it all goes to pot and gets bought up by foreign investors).

So yes, there has been a change is what is considered acceptably tall but there isn't much in the way of alternatives at present.
 
technical said:
I'm not disagreeing with you - but unless something significant happens with population growth (not impossible given Brexit and everything else) and everyone agrees that building on the green belt away from public transport is okay, then greater density and therefore height is absolutely necessary to provide homes in London (putting aside leaving things to the market, where it all goes to pot and gets bought up by foreign investors).

So yes, there has been a change is what is considered acceptably tall but there isn't much in the way of alternatives at present.
Click to expand...
I think what I initially disagreed with was when you said you didn't think principles are being thrown out.

I would say that previously accepted town planning principles - to do with acceptable height in the context of existing buildings - are being thrown out. Whether they need to be thrown out is another argument ... and I don't really have any answers as far as alternatives are concerned, beyond vague suggestions of trying to decentralise things nationally to reduce the pressure in London and building in other parts of the country where there are loads of brownfield sites available (which I'd want to build alongside proper public transport infrastructure).
 
technical said:
I'm not disagreeing with you - but unless something significant happens with population growth (not impossible given Brexit and everything else) and everyone agrees that building on the green belt away from public transport is okay, then greater density and therefore height is absolutely necessary to provide homes in London (putting aside leaving things to the market, where it all goes to pot and gets bought up by foreign investors).

So yes, there has been a change is what is considered acceptably tall but there isn't much in the way of alternatives at present.
Click to expand...
The massive tower that Hondo wants to build isn't about housing though, is it?
In fact, sticking it in the centre of Brixton will just increase the pressure for more (unaffordable) housing.
 
teuchter said:
I think what I initially disagreed with was when you said you didn't think principles are being thrown out.

I would say that previously accepted town planning principles - to do with acceptable height in the context of existing buildings - are being thrown out. Whether they need to be thrown out is another argument ... and I don't really have any answers as far as alternatives are concerned, beyond vague suggestions of trying to decentralise things nationally to reduce the pressure in London and building in other parts of the country where there are loads of brownfield sites available (which I'd want to build alongside proper public transport infrastructure).
Click to expand...
I'd describe planning as attempting to ensure the most efficient use of land - and would agree about your points to do with places outside London. But that's not the responsibility of the Mayor or London boroughs who have to plan for London. Town planning principles have to reflect the context they're dealing with. Which at the moment means greater density in the most appropriate places.
 
editor said:
The massive tower that Hondo wants to build isn't about housing though, is it?
In fact, sticking it in the centre of Brixton will just increase the pressure for more (unaffordable) housing.
Click to expand...
The difference with that is that nobody (including Lambeth) want it other than the developers. It goes against every single piece of relevant adopted planning policy.

Who knows if they'll come back with a revised design. My guess is they thought the Mayor was going to turn it down so withdrew it to avoid the public inquiry and the costs that would bring.
 
David Clapson said:
All these towers should be built in East Croydon, which can't be made any worse than it already is.
Click to expand...

I only noticed this year that boroughs near East Croydon use it as an example of what they don't want to become in local election campaigns. Apparently it has been a regular feature of Richmond/Kingston for decades and also other bits of Surrey - most recently I saw it in a story about Woking's new tower blocks.
 
to be fair, now that I've said it, at least some of them look better than around Vauxhall. it's a better total development. but so many and so high, and not cheap.
 
technical said:
The difference with that is that nobody (including Lambeth) want it other than the developers. It goes against every single piece of relevant adopted planning policy.
Click to expand...
I'd suggest that Lambeth most definitely did want the tower. They shut down the first planning meeting when it looked like the vote was going against it and then rubber stamped it through with a different set of councillors at the second meeting,
 
editor said:
I'd suggest that Lambeth most definitely did want the tower. They shut down the first planning meeting when it looked like the vote was going against it and then rubber stamped it through with a different set of councillors at the second meeting,
Click to expand...
Quite - they just couldn't wait another 10 years for new planning guidelines to be consulted on and adopted!
 
technical said:
Well I suppose you're right in that quite a few areas across London have been designated for growth - Vauxhall/Nine Elms, Elephant & Castle, Stratford, Old Oak Common etc. Higher densities in these areas are supposed to be the most efficient and sustainable use of land, aided by good public transport accessibility and helping to deliver the extra homes London needs. The intentions are good but the delivery has been patchy to say the least.

Part of the problem is people don't like change, and particularly on the scale seen in Vauxhall. I'm not at all keen on what has happened there due to the mish mash of design and heights, but the drivers behind it are sound even if the execution of it has been all over the place.
Click to expand...
Vauxhall is a good example of available land not being used to solve the housing crisis. Instead the builders have built lots of shiny investment opportunities for oligarchs and foreign billionaires. Where are the people the London needs, the nurses, carers, teachers, workers, where are they supposed to live?

I dont mind change and would not object to taller denser properties if they actually provided real homes.

The planned demolition of the much loved cressingham gardens estate to be replaced with a shiny high rise expensive flats just shows were Lambeth priorities lie, which is not with their own citizens who need affordable housing.
 
Last edited:
While that is true, actual real people do live in those flats as well. And they must have moved from somewhere, so their old property becomes available (to buy or rent) and so on down the chain, so they do make a difference, although obviously it would be better if they were all social housing to replace those sold off. But in a prime site by the river, that was never going to happen
 
technical said:
I'd describe planning as attempting to ensure the most efficient use of land - and would agree about your points to do with places outside London. But that's not the responsibility of the Mayor or London boroughs who have to plan for London. Town planning principles have to reflect the context they're dealing with. Which at the moment means greater density in the most appropriate places.
Click to expand...

This sounds to me like saying let property developers do what they want.

"Efficient" use of land is not a ideologically neutral statement.

Had this in Loughborough Junction. Saving land for use as an adventure playground has been met by Lambeths highly paid senior officers as an affront to their understanding of what is so called efficient use of land.

Efficient would have meant disposing of it to a developer.

Planning is a business. There is a whole cadre of middle class professionals who work for Councils who seem to know what is best for communities. Im assuming them have degrees and what not means they are better placed than me , a whining resident, to decide what is " efficient"

Its also for them highly remunerative.

My view is the way the planning industry works now with all its highly paid so called professionals and Cllrs who go off and work in private sector advising developers is shit.
 
Walked past St Matthews tonight and heard a sound that reminded me of a water hose and when I looked at the church the water was spraying down within the portico

Which given the time of night seems like an odd time to give it a good old wash so presumably it's designed to stop people sleeping there
 
Gramsci said:
This sounds to me like saying let property developers do what they want.

"Efficient" use of land is not a ideologically neutral statement.

Had this in Loughborough Junction. Saving land for use as an adventure playground has been met by Lambeths highly paid senior officers as an affront to their understanding of what is so called efficient use of land.

Efficient would have meant disposing of it to a developer.

Planning is a business. There is a whole cadre of middle class professionals who work for Councils who seem to know what is best for communities. Im assuming them have degrees and what not means they are better placed than me , a whining resident, to decide what is " efficient"

Its also for them highly remunerative.

My view is the way the planning industry works now with all its highly paid so called professionals and Cllrs who go off and work in private sector advising developers is shit.
Click to expand...
I mean efficient in the sense of the most sustainable. Using new development to create compact cities that use available space with good public transport. That's the intention of the planning system - it gets derailed where it intersects with market forces. And there's discretion left to decision makers which leads to inconsistency at times
 
BusLanes said:
Walked past St Matthews tonight and heard a sound that reminded me of a water hose and when I looked at the church the water was spraying down within the portico

Which given the time of night seems like an odd time to give it a good old wash so presumably it's designed to stop people sleeping there
Click to expand...
It's not aimed at the sleepers. They've had a huge problem recently with crack crowds who for a while used to congregate in large groups on the back stairs and playground. Since those stairs have been cordoned off they have been gathering under the front portico.
 
Rushy said:
It's not aimed at the sleepers. They've had a huge problem recently with crack crowds who for a while used to congregate in large groups on the back stairs and playground. Since those stairs have been cordoned off they have been gathering under the front portico.
Click to expand...

Ahh I see, thanks.

Having lived above a spot that the crack crowd used I have some sympathy
 
So last night I had to call an ambulance for a young woman who was slumped on a chair in Windrush Square. She was barely responsive and was attracting the attention of a few lurkers - one of whom claimed he knew her by name. My friend and I weren't convinced and it later turned out he clearly didn't know her.

She seemed well dressed with a laptop bag next to her and after about 10 mins of trying to get her to respond or sit up, I called 999 and the ambulance crew were fucking fantastic. They arrived within 5 minutes and we so incredibly kind and gentle with her even though it seemed apparent that she'd put herself at risk through getting comatose with drink and quite possibly drugs.

I honestly got quite emotional seeing the way she was looked after and it was worrying to think what might have happened to her if we hadn't passed by....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

editor
Cyclist killed in Brixton
2
Replies
32
Views
2K
T & P
T & P
blameless77
After work pint in Brixton?
Replies
12
Views
799
editor
editor
editor
Homophobia in Brixton
2
Replies
38
Views
5K
Tulster218
T
editor
It's a grim Christmas around Brixton: no lights, no tree and no funfair
Replies
1
Views
744
skyscraper101
skyscraper101
editor
Where to watch England vs Spain Euro 2024 final in Brixton
Replies
6
Views
505
madolesance
M
Back
Top Bottom