Brixton planning watch: planning applications and decisions listed
- Thread starter editor
- Start date
CH1
"Red Guard"(NLYL)
Somewhat technical.
Translation: "Only members of the section of RIBA supporting wholesale regeneration need reply"
CH1
"Red Guard"(NLYL)
I must confess I forgot about this developer "consultation", though Brixton Bugle evidently didn't - they have a small article on this on page 2.Many alarm bells ringing for this one. I couldn't find anything in Lambeth's planning database for the address,
Doesn't look particularly like they would "re-establish the historic facade". In fact if I am reading the picture right they seem to be putting a concrete tower on the corner, with some sort of pastiche building in between the tower and Boots with Victorian widows on the 2nd and third storey and modern functional but ugly concrete on the fourth and fifth.
An end to Gramsci 's cherries and foxes. An generally a good effort to reduce the former elegance of Electric Avenue to a hotchpotch more like Whitchapel Market. Which if you read account documents relating to Pagecolt Brixton limited is not wholly surprising.
Pagecolt have had the site for at least 20 years, as Companies House mortgage certificates show, though I've never heard of them before.
The development consultant is much more slick - and indeed Hannover Cube LLP seem remarkably uninformative - as you can see from their website.
Rushy
basically a scrotum
The fourth and fifth stories are a pitched roof set back from the lower facade. So not as imposing from street level as the elevation in the Bugle suggest, but architecturally a bit of a random design. Reminds me of Ivor House. Which also always seemed rather incongruous. Lots of good new office space though.
teuchter
je suis teuchter
My guess at the height they'd try for was about right then
CH1
"Red Guard"(NLYL)
This must be a follow-up from an appeal case last year.
The alterations referred to were in breach of earlier planning applications, so Lambeth Enforcement took some sort of action (unusually) and it all ended up with a two day appeal hearing, which went on at Roots and Shoots in Walnut Tree Walk in September a year ago.
Funnily enough the appeals section never publicised any result. I guess in light of this application that Snowden Estates may have been directed to make a compromise application?
BTW do you recall also posting this on another thread? Still awaiting news on this.
CH1
"Red Guard"(NLYL)
That is what the article says. However as I said I did not attend either of their extremely local consultations (a good mile away in Effra Parade).
Rushy
basically a scrotum
Yes. With additional stories set back above. They have also proposed an unusual treatment of the "historical" windows element - a sort of inverse of existing - apparently so as to allow more light in.
Rushy
basically a scrotum
Seems to be the routine now. Put in a consultation for something guaranteed to get local hackles up, then get planning points for having listened when you scale it back to something still oversized.
Hambrook House is still too high at 14 stories. But everyone was relieved that it wasn't the originally proposed 20.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
This must be a follow-up from an appeal case last year.
The alterations referred to were in breach of earlier planning applications, so Lambeth Enforcement took some sort of action (unusually) and it all ended up with a two day appeal hearing, which went on at Roots and Shoots in Walnut Tree Walk in September a year ago.
Funnily enough the appeals section never publicised any result. I guess in light of this application that Snowden Estates may have been directed to make a compromise application?
BTW do you recall also posting this on another thread? Still awaiting news on this.
From the enforcement notice,
So the owners are slum landlords.
teuchter
je suis teuchter
This is for the 'London Hotel' building, right?
London Hotel - Private Accommodation in the London Area
It sounds like quite a major planning breach. I hope they aren't going to let them get away with it by granting retrospective permission that would never have been granted if applied for initially.
editor
hiraethified
Scum.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
I haven't read all the docs. Just the one I posted.
At end of that it says,
So looks like retrospective planning application has a chance.
It is the London Hotel. Not run as hotel for some time.
I will need to look at the planning application to see how the poor living conditions are improved without total demolition and starting again.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
I think they house vulnerable people the Council can't house. They are the modern Rachmans raking it in. Its a lot of units crammed into small space.
The enforcement notice says as its not being run as hotel but (small) flats the owners should have paid Section 106 / CIL contribution. Which goes towards affordable housing and local infrastructure.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
De
Despite the planning officers saying that the accommodation at the London Hotel is substandard Lambeth housing have been using it to house homeless people. This is really crap. Not only that they have written letter praising the owners.
Housing officers should ensure accommodation they use for homeless people is up to standard.
This letter is in on the retrospective planning application as one of the documents. So imo Lambeth Housing wrote in in support of the application.
Despite the planning officers saying that the accommodation at the London Hotel is substandard Lambeth housing have been using it to house homeless people. This is really crap. Not only that they have written letter praising the owners.
Housing officers should ensure accommodation they use for homeless people is up to standard.
This letter is in on the retrospective planning application as one of the documents. So imo Lambeth Housing wrote in in support of the application.
Last edited:
editor
hiraethified
Maybe you could drop Private Eye a line, as something doesn't seem right here.
CH1
"Red Guard"(NLYL)
editor Gramsci I haven't looked at this yet - but the irony of this is the extension enabling the extra 45 "cramped" rooms to be added was signed off on officers delegated authority by Doug Black some years back and without local consultation as far as I can ascertain.
The planning inspector's enquiry was to determine whether the alterations were actually included in this planning permission, as far as I understand it.
One issue would have been the provision of windows and a fire escape on what has become a Lexadon building site - but there is much more.
So it is interesting to see how this one pans out. BTW in a way the massive expansion of the London Hotel is more intrusive than the Premier Inn up the road, but considering how Metropolitan already destroyed the Victorian aesthetic Rushcroft Road at the Vining Street end you could almost argue that the London Hotel Extension blends in with this!
The planning inspector's enquiry was to determine whether the alterations were actually included in this planning permission, as far as I understand it.
One issue would have been the provision of windows and a fire escape on what has become a Lexadon building site - but there is much more.
So it is interesting to see how this one pans out. BTW in a way the massive expansion of the London Hotel is more intrusive than the Premier Inn up the road, but considering how Metropolitan already destroyed the Victorian aesthetic Rushcroft Road at the Vining Street end you could almost argue that the London Hotel Extension blends in with this!
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
Doug Black is the Council Conservation officer? He would have signed it off on effect on conservation area I would assume.
Looked back at the retrospective planning application and its applying for permission to be a HMO. As the officers regard it as unauthorized development of small flats I'm thinking applying to be a "large HMO" is possibly way to get around this problem for the landlords.
Its stretching it to say that the London hotel is a house.
Will have to look later at some more of the documents.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
I'm two thirds of a way through the planning statement for the London "hotel" and had to stop for today as reading this shit written by appropriately qualified professionals is making me see red.
So to get around the problem of building unauthorized self contained small flats the owners are going to go for HMO status. To do this they will be removing cooking facilities from the majority of the flats. Expecting the people living at the "hotel" to use communal kitchen at end of hallways.
So in practice its going to get worse for tenants.
This is endorsed by Council officers.
The owners also say that the original use granted as a hotel never was acted on. Despite sign saying London hotel the present owners are arguing that never was the use of the premises historically.
Apparently actual use over number of years should be given weight. The appeals CH1 mention are referred to.
The statement also says (and this is backed up by letter from Lambeth Housing) that Lambeth were well aware this was going on for quite a few years. As they were using flats to house homeless people. The lease is also on planning website. It refers to flats as self contained.
So applicant is saying they will do works to justify HMO status by removing kitchens, building never was a hotel in practice, Lambeth housing knew this and were quite happy with it.
So this retrospective application was cooked up by Planning officers, Lambeth housing officers and owner to get around the problem that it's not in accordance with Lambeth planning guidelines.
The whole thing is shit.
Big time scumbag landlord wins.
So to get around the problem of building unauthorized self contained small flats the owners are going to go for HMO status. To do this they will be removing cooking facilities from the majority of the flats. Expecting the people living at the "hotel" to use communal kitchen at end of hallways.
So in practice its going to get worse for tenants.
This is endorsed by Council officers.
The owners also say that the original use granted as a hotel never was acted on. Despite sign saying London hotel the present owners are arguing that never was the use of the premises historically.
Apparently actual use over number of years should be given weight. The appeals CH1 mention are referred to.
The statement also says (and this is backed up by letter from Lambeth Housing) that Lambeth were well aware this was going on for quite a few years. As they were using flats to house homeless people. The lease is also on planning website. It refers to flats as self contained.
So applicant is saying they will do works to justify HMO status by removing kitchens, building never was a hotel in practice, Lambeth housing knew this and were quite happy with it.
So this retrospective application was cooked up by Planning officers, Lambeth housing officers and owner to get around the problem that it's not in accordance with Lambeth planning guidelines.
The whole thing is shit.
Big time scumbag landlord wins.
Last edited:
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
I should have said earlier the way to access all the documents for the London "hotel" is going to Lambeth planning portal and putting this reference into search,
18/ 03364/ FUL
18/03364/FUL | Use of the property as a large HMO (Sui Generis); retrospective planning permission for the completed external alterations (erection of a side and rear extension at first and second floor levels linking into a roof extension); and consent for further external works including restoration and repair works, provision of cycle and refuse storage. | 409-417 Coldharbour Lane London SW9 8LH
18/ 03364/ FUL
18/03364/FUL | Use of the property as a large HMO (Sui Generis); retrospective planning permission for the completed external alterations (erection of a side and rear extension at first and second floor levels linking into a roof extension); and consent for further external works including restoration and repair works, provision of cycle and refuse storage. | 409-417 Coldharbour Lane London SW9 8LH
teuchter
je suis teuchter
Reading some of that stuff doesn't make it very clear what the rationale is for reclassifying as HMO. But I don't know if it's necessarily 'landlord wins'. I'd have thought you can make more money renting out X number of 'self contained flats' than you can renting out X number of rooms with communal cooking facilities. Only some (16 of the 38?) of the rooms/flats are used by Lambeth. Anyway the multitude of planning statements are written in a confusing enough way for me to give up trying to understand further, for now.
CH1
"Red Guard"(NLYL)
That's right. As people will know there has been shortage of staff and high staff turnover at Lambeth Planning in the last ten years. He was "acting up" at the time of the original application I assume.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
I take your point. I'm finding hard to follow.
My view is from the all landlords are bastards point of view.
I think good question for planning committee is what is this building for? If it is for housing statutory homeless and for affordable rent then it should be treated as self contained flats. As the licence for the 16 flats between owners and Council states.
Removing kitchens from the self contained flats imo will make things worse for people living in the "hotel? Question for committee.
I'm going to put objection in.
One part of Council (planning,) is correctly pointing out this was hotel not flats. That owners, as you say correctly, flouted planning rules. Another part of Council (Housing) is saying they want this as homeless people hostel.
If it goes to committee thrn in my opinion the issue is is this a hotel or homeless people hostel?
They should decide on that and make agreements to ensure the best conditions for those that use it.
I would put uses rights above cost.
My background opinion is that owners and officers are shits.
So going to planning committee of elected Cllrs is the issue.
Last edited:
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
Similar threads
