Brixton Rec/central Brixton consultation and the 'Rec Quarter' proposals
- Thread starter Gramsci
- Start date
leanderman
Street Party: July 2
editor
hiraethified
I really haven't said that at all, but I am doubtful that many of the new residents will have attended the community meetings that preceded the building of their new upmarket, private tower block* - which I believe was the point being made.
(*with minimal unaffordable 'affordable' flats and zero social housing included)
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
editor High Definition
Replacing in the sense that the regeneration of Brixton according to these drawings could undermine what I like about Brixton. And my views are not unusual. I have talked to market traders, small business and local residents. None are enthusiastic. Some small business fear for their future if Brixton is developed like this.
One person I know said to me these drawing make him think that Network Rail want to make the area another Bermondsey market. And he did not mean that in support of it.
The point of taking part in this community process ie consultation is to make sure those in power take notice of what people want.
As High Definition has pointed out issues like retaining existing business and artists studios are not being taken seriously.
I would not trust the Council when they say that 40% of the housing will be affordable either. I do not think that the Council are good at dealing with developers.
I will be going to the next consultation meeting on the 2nd. Despite my reservations about the consultation process.
Last edited:
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
Here's the BBuzz piece.
Quite a lot to take in. Everything seems to have 'potential.' This includes the 9 storey hotel above the mainline station, a refurbished train station, a high rise car park, converting International House to accommodation and connecting the Village with Brixton Station Road.
There is yet another workshop session scheduled for 2 December. You need to reserve a place. The link isn't working
If you want to go to the meeting on the 2nd I would advise you just to turn up. They were not sending people away last time.
Its in the Town Hall from 6.30pm
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
I was reading article in Guardian ( will try to find it tomorrow). Journalist looked at someone from Singapore who had invested in property in London. Turned out the person lived in public housing in Singapore. Which is not unusual. Also Singapore has much more restrictive rules on foreigners buying/ owning property unlike this country. In short the journalist said that all mainstream politicians in this country have supine relationship with international capital.
Found it. Worth quoting in full:
So there you have it Singapore government provides public housing and actively puts off foreign buyers. It can be done.
Last edited:
High Definition
Active Member
Agree with all of Gramsci's points - except that I think Network Rail want something a bit more upmarket than Bermondsey - they're dreaming of a cross between St Pancras Station and Covent Garden, boutiques selling luxury goods.
This is one of the aspects of the Masterplan that I really want to object to - turfing out artists and market traders from one of the last parts of Brixton where people are still making things and then replacing them with a whole load of bars and shops paying top of the market rents.
Here are a couple of photos which show how some of the arches are being used now. The open arch (with the big foot on wheels in the foreground) is one of the three arches used by the Bureau of Silly Ideas and used to store big equipment (the pineapple on wheels, the walking busstop, etc). The other photo is of one of two double height arches leased by the BISI from Network Rail and used as workshop and recording space.
If these go and are replaced by yet more bars and boutiques, then we lose part of what makes Brixton special, which I why I'll be doing all I can to challenge the Masterplan proposals for Valentia Pl
I
Found a couple of photos to show how some of the Valentia Place arches are being used now -
High Definition
Active Member
Have been looking at Lambeth's planning policies and seems to me that the Brixton Masterplan can be challenged because it flouts Lambeth's Saved UDP Policy 24: Use of Railway Arches. This says that Lambeth's railway arches are "a finite and scarce resource" providing "relatively cheap and flexible accommodation to a range of activities which play an essential role in the functioning of the local economy". Recognising this, the Council's planning policies provide special protection to railway arches - "Railway arches in industrial or storage uses are protected for such uses unless they are proven to be causing detriment to residential amenity".
Saved UDP policy 24 is one of a group of policies adopted in 2007 which provide detailed guidance on employment sites and are still used by Lambeth planners to justify recommendations - e.g. the officers report recommending the Higgs Triangle site (overturned at Planning Committee a few days ago) quoted another UDP policy to argue that it was okay to replace industrial space with officers as long as there was no net loss in floorspace.
Saved UDP policy 24 is one of a group of policies adopted in 2007 which provide detailed guidance on employment sites and are still used by Lambeth planners to justify recommendations - e.g. the officers report recommending the Higgs Triangle site (overturned at Planning Committee a few days ago) quoted another UDP policy to argue that it was okay to replace industrial space with officers as long as there was no net loss in floorspace.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
I filled in the questionnaire
There is a lot of space for extra comments. So High Definition I would recommend you copy and paste some of your very good posts here into the questionnaire. I think its important this all gets passed onto Council.
I wrote this:
The recent drawings/ proposals are detrimental to long term benefit of Brixton. They will lead to the affordable shops in Brixton Station road being pushed out.Proposals say refurbishment of the arches on Brixton station road. How will this be done? I am afraid the traders there will be forced out and not return. Same with the use of arches in Valentia place by artists. There is nothing in the recent drawings to show where these artists studios will be relocated. Looks like they will go and not be able to come back.
One of the things about the consultation was that Affordable housing and culture/ community are very important to people. Yet I do not see how the recent drawings will achieve those aims.
It looks to me that if implemented this will lead to further gentrification of the area.
I would like the consultants/ Council officers to go out and talk to the actual small business/ artists who use the arches to find out what are there fears and concerns. What they want for the future. As the ones I have talked to fear that the Brixton they know and like will go for ever. To be replaced by extension of Brixton Village.
A better plan would be to do incremental changes rather than a big project. This was suggested at one of the reference group meetings.
This would decrease the complete disruption for existing small traders. It would also make the whole Brixton Central project more liable to be responsive to local needs. Rather than a grand scheme.
The website says a development partner will be sought. I would like the Council to retain ownership of the ice rink site - whatever is built there. I would also prefer the Council to lead the development of the site rather than hand that to a developer.
I am very concerned about affordable housing. In what sense will it be affordable?
How will the Council ensure its built? As at Brixton square the developer altered the affordable housing after the development had already been started to be built.
I also think there is no joined up thinking with relating the Brixton Rec to the whole site. The Rec could be integrated into the development of the whole site. The outside of the Rec could be better used than it is now. There is no attempt to look at how the Rec fits in with the whole site. Its just treated as separate issue. There is also oppurtunity to extend sport uses outside the Rec onto the Brixton Central site.
The Rec is a very important part of the central site. Its a community resource not just a Rec. The Brixton Central site could be seen as developing community uses for the site in conjunction with the Rec.
The present proposals / drawings look like something to get a "development" partner interested or for Network Rail to maximise there income from the part of the site they own.
There is a lot of space for extra comments. So High Definition I would recommend you copy and paste some of your very good posts here into the questionnaire. I think its important this all gets passed onto Council.
I wrote this:
The recent drawings/ proposals are detrimental to long term benefit of Brixton. They will lead to the affordable shops in Brixton Station road being pushed out.Proposals say refurbishment of the arches on Brixton station road. How will this be done? I am afraid the traders there will be forced out and not return. Same with the use of arches in Valentia place by artists. There is nothing in the recent drawings to show where these artists studios will be relocated. Looks like they will go and not be able to come back.
One of the things about the consultation was that Affordable housing and culture/ community are very important to people. Yet I do not see how the recent drawings will achieve those aims.
It looks to me that if implemented this will lead to further gentrification of the area.
I would like the consultants/ Council officers to go out and talk to the actual small business/ artists who use the arches to find out what are there fears and concerns. What they want for the future. As the ones I have talked to fear that the Brixton they know and like will go for ever. To be replaced by extension of Brixton Village.
A better plan would be to do incremental changes rather than a big project. This was suggested at one of the reference group meetings.
This would decrease the complete disruption for existing small traders. It would also make the whole Brixton Central project more liable to be responsive to local needs. Rather than a grand scheme.
The website says a development partner will be sought. I would like the Council to retain ownership of the ice rink site - whatever is built there. I would also prefer the Council to lead the development of the site rather than hand that to a developer.
I am very concerned about affordable housing. In what sense will it be affordable?
How will the Council ensure its built? As at Brixton square the developer altered the affordable housing after the development had already been started to be built.
I also think there is no joined up thinking with relating the Brixton Rec to the whole site. The Rec could be integrated into the development of the whole site. The outside of the Rec could be better used than it is now. There is no attempt to look at how the Rec fits in with the whole site. Its just treated as separate issue. There is also oppurtunity to extend sport uses outside the Rec onto the Brixton Central site.
The Rec is a very important part of the central site. Its a community resource not just a Rec. The Brixton Central site could be seen as developing community uses for the site in conjunction with the Rec.
The present proposals / drawings look like something to get a "development" partner interested or for Network Rail to maximise there income from the part of the site they own.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
To add. Someone just pointed out to me that Network Rail is publicy owned.
Network Rail is publicly owned. Here its was classified as publicly owned
As its publicly owned then there is argument that the arches it owns are publicly owned assets. So there refurbishment should be done in public interest. Not purely for maximum profit like a purely private company would.
Network Rail is publicly owned. Here its was classified as publicly owned
As its publicly owned then there is argument that the arches it owns are publicly owned assets. So there refurbishment should be done in public interest. Not purely for maximum profit like a purely private company would.
leanderman
Street Party: July 2
I filled out the questionnaire too.
The proposals all seemed plausible enough.
You are right about the unaffordable affordable housing - but can Lambeth do anything about that and stay within the centrally-imposed rules?
The proposals all seemed plausible enough.
You are right about the unaffordable affordable housing - but can Lambeth do anything about that and stay within the centrally-imposed rules?
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
The problem is that Lambeth constructs these consultation exercises as though the end result is something all sides are happy with. The myth of Co production.
At the same time they ask people want they want to see in a masterplan.
I feel pressured at consultation meetings to go along with what is presented.
I’m only a resident. I would rather tell those in power what I want to see happen. Its their problem if they cannot deliver.
Affordable housing is the top of peoples concerns according to the Future Brixton consultation.
Second come is about retaining "Culture and Community".
leanderman
Street Party: July 2
Yep: the questionnaire very much encourages you toward giving the answers they want.
Word.
sparkybird
ask the bird...
I just filled in the questionnaire again. I had already done it a few weeks back, but didn't put my email address in this time and it got accepted. Hope this might help!
Although I did add that in light of the deficit and the govt's proposal to cut a further 1 in 5 public sector jobs, maybe they won't be needing all of their nice new swanky New Town Hall space and some could be given up to other things..... was this a bit below the belt??
Although I did add that in light of the deficit and the govt's proposal to cut a further 1 in 5 public sector jobs, maybe they won't be needing all of their nice new swanky New Town Hall space and some could be given up to other things..... was this a bit below the belt??
editor
hiraethified
Here's another report from the last meeting and a superb analysis of the Masterplan:
http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2014/12/brixton-central-masterplan-another-nail-in-the-coffin/
http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2014/12/brixton-central-masterplan-another-nail-in-the-coffin/
OvalhouseDB
Well-Known Member
Interesting looking at all the drawings for this site. The plan before 2008 as for OvalHouse to go between the railways, facing on to a square and an improved entrance to the overground...
One thing:
"The council is treating the three developments — Brixton Central, Brixton Hill and Somerleyton Rd — as one development in their treatment of housing" isn't the case as far as I know it from Somerleyton Rd. Each development is being treated separately and will go through Planning as an individual project and need to meet the levels of 'affordable' that are council policy on it's own terms. Council Policy is to provide 'affordable' at 40%, while the Somerleyton Rd project is geared towards 40% at council target (i.e council property) rent and then 'affordable' at different levels in addition to that. There will be no possibility of countering the Somerleyton Rd levels with lower levels of 'affordable' on other sites!
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
I have yet to write up my notes of the meeting.
Andrea is basically correct.
I was as usual on the "dissenting" table in the consultation.
Whilst to my surprise the Council and consultants have taken on board the fact that people top priorities are "affordable housing" and "culture and community" there is no mechanism/ delivery model in how these concerns will be met.
As OvalhouseDB says the affordable housing on Somerleyton road will be dealt differently from the other sites.
To clarify Andreas article the housing on Brixton Central will be 40% affordable ( in theory) and based on the up to 80% of market rent model. The officers will use the affordable model they used on Brixton Square. That is larger family units will be around 60% of market rent to make them approximately similar to Council target rent. One bed single person flats will be nearer to the 80% of market rent. ie not really affordable. Lambeth Council officers reckon this is good deal. It means they can get larger family sized units ( 3 beds) at rents which will not be affected by benefit caps. Single people are low priority for the Council.
As regular readers of U75 know developers use "feasibility studies" to reduce the amount of affordable housing down from the 40%. I do not know in what ways Lambeth will seek to stop this happening on Brixton Central. As it looks like they Council have decided they will be seeking a development "partner".
The other main issue is Network Rail. I did ask senior officer about this. Told him that Network Rail were now classified as a public company. Implying that they should not be purely profit driven. So seek to not push up rents that push out existing traders/ small business/ artist studios.
He said that Network Rail profit from its property was meant to be ploughed back into the railway network. ie they were supposed to maximize return from the property ( mainly arches in Brixton) they own. This imo would lead to the existing business in Brixton Station road going in the future. On the plans it says those arches will be "refurbished". Whatever that means.
The consultation found that the 4th priority for people was affordable workspace and retail. So its an issue of local concern. I saw no suggestions from Council side about how to do this. Apart from the usual Council pet scheme of business "start up" units. Which is not really the issue. The issue is how to safeguard the existing small business and traders.
So whilst all the right noises are made by the Council the reality is that the Brixton Central scheme is liable to be mainly about financial "feasibility" and the return on investment that the site can produce.
Looks to me that Council will put forward argument that this is "inward investment" into Brixton that will produce jobs for local people and knock on effects for other business.
Council will argue that they will ensure that jobs/ training will go to local people. That the 40% affordable housing is the best they can do in the limits put on them by central government and Boris.
There is a gulf between what the range of local people who voiced an opinion actually want and what the Council (Labour) will deliver in reality.
The thing that residents/ small business do not know about is the talks that must be going on between Network Rail and Council. They were hinted at but no detail.
Last edited:
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
Its not the rules that stop Lambeth building more Council housing at target rent its the finance.
On land it owns in theory it can build 100% Council housing at target rent.
On land owned by developer or large landowner like Network Rail the Council has a more difficult time getting them to build the 40% affordable housing that large developments should have according to planning guidelines.
leanderman
Street Party: July 2
Precisely: finance (financial rules).
Maybe the/a whole project can be paid for and delivered on target rent.
But the lower the rent the greater the chance that the project would need to be 'subsidised'.
It might - even should - be the case that Lambeth council taxpayers want to pay, say, £100 more a year to fund social housing. But it won't happen.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
Fuller notes on the Brixton Central Masterplan "reference group" meeting on 2nd December. Part one as site said to long to post up all in one message.
This was the third reference group consultation meeting on the development of a masterplan for the Brixton Central area.
Well attended. Though only a few had been to all three meetings.
The officers/ consultants gave an overview first then we were split up on tables for discussion of the proposals developed so far by the consultants and officers.
Summary of what they said below:
The Future Brixton project would bring a lot of new investment into Brixton. New jobs and homes.
The full 60 page report on the consultation up to now is here
The consultation identified 12 development principles which people were asked to rate. The top four were affordable housing - which was truly affordable, culture and community, car parking for market and affordable workspace and retail.
There will be new car parking space on the old Ice Rink site. Either a smaller car park at ground level or a larger multi story car park.
The idea of a hotel where the disused building by station on Popes road was not fully supported. Two thirds had concerns. Such as does Brixton need another hotel.
The proposal was to "activate" the space between the railway lines. With retail on ground level. Above that an opportunity for workspace and homes higher up.
The site would be able to have additional retail, light industrial and artists studios. They did say artist studios but its not on the website. There are artists studios in some of the arches. Which are in danger of being lost if there is new development.
Design approach.
The design approach was to look at the use of the space and environment. There is opportunity for a new and improved public realm. Particularly by the Rec alongside Brixton Station and between Rec and Ice Rink site. Also extension of Brixton Village with a new covered market space. At higher levels flats with their own outdoor space. About 250 units. To put this amount in the heights would be 15 to 18 stories. There would be a new "public square" on Popes road with new entrance to station.
The development brief that would go to a "development partner" is not the actual architectural design itself. This comes at later stage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
After this there were some questions/ points from those present:
The building of 250 units and improvements would have a knock on effect of increasing land values in surrounding area and thus putting up rents of private renters.
The answer from Council officer:
The Council was encouraging the building of more housing. This was in line with planning policy. This would help to ease pressure on housing. Officer did not refute that land values around the area may increase.
Someone from London Citizens said that they wanted affordable housing to be based on medium income for the area. Rather than the up to 80% of market rent that is classified as affordable but in reality is not to most people.
Answer from officer:
40% of the housing on the site will be affordable ( in theory) and based on the up to 80% of market rent model. The officers will use the affordable model are using on other sites in Lambeth- a "blended" rate. That is larger family units will be set at around 60% of market rent to make them approximately similar to Council target rent. One bed single person flats will be nearer to the 80% of market rent. ie not really affordable. Lambeth Council officers reckon this is good deal. It means they can get larger family sized units ( 3 beds) at rents which will not be affected by benefit caps. (Single people are low priority for the Council.)
The proposal include a lot of tall buildings. This will affect the skyline. The Council have produced a Tall Building study which says how tall buildings should be in specific areas.
Answer from officer:
The heights of buildings will take into account the tall building study.
(There appears to be an argument about how much height of buildings is affected by being in Brixton. Most of which is in Conservation area. So I am not sure there is definite answer to how tall certain buildings can be yet.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Officer said that the next stage will be for the Council to agree a "development brief". The Council will need to define its relationship with the other big landowner on the site- Network Rail. In theory NR could decide on its own what to do with its land and apply for planning permission. The Council is likely to seek a relationship with NR to make a coherent scheme for all the site.
The officers will put a report into the Cabinet of the Council ( the main decision making body of the Council consisting of Cllrs). The Cabinet will agree the development brief or amend it. This will take place in April/ May. A full planning application will go in around Autumn 2016.
There will be more consultation later on as the project progresses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We were split up into groups to discuss the proposals
We wrote our comments on the sheets provided by consultants. I do not have yet the full report for this meeting. The consultants asked specific questions on homes, heights of building and uses.
There was a summing up at the end from each group so here are some for my notes on what came up.
Concerns about putting people living above other uses ( workshops/ retail). This might be detrimental to the living environment. There would need to be good management and security for the housing if it was above a other uses.
At my table we did not think there should be housing between the railway lines when so many other uses were on the same site. That this would not work. Instead we said there should be new public space. Also the new blocks between railway lines would be inappropriate heights for the existing streetscape of Brixton.
Everyone agreed that truly affordable housing was very important. Some said they did not mind how tall buildings were as long as that meant the maximum affordable housing.
Air quality- was a study to be done about this? As a lot of new homes would be on the site.
As the buildings were high and therefore highly visible the architecture should be of a high standard.
Instead of hotel a youth hostel or homeless centre was suggested instead.
The new retail should be affordable shops that retained the culture and flavour of the area and not just new more expensive restaurants/ bars. Existing traders should be protected and the market not diluted.
Pushing the existing light industrial further out east was wrong approach. Some of the big arches were used by well established arts group "The bureau of Silly Ideas" to fabricate large pieces for example.
The car park led to differing opinions. Some thought it was necessary for the market. Others thought car use should be discouraged and greener form of transport use encouraged by less car parking space. It would be possible to "filter" out certain types of traffic from the area. ie private cars but allow traders vehicles, delivery vehicles and buses.
(The Council said it is thinking of doing an experiment like up at Loughborough Junction closing some roads etc around market area to through traffic. Not sure yet exactly how this will work).
Suggested that there should be secure cycle parking as this was not on the proposal drawings. Also Boris bikes in the market area.
................................................................................................................................................................................
This was the third reference group consultation meeting on the development of a masterplan for the Brixton Central area.
Well attended. Though only a few had been to all three meetings.
The officers/ consultants gave an overview first then we were split up on tables for discussion of the proposals developed so far by the consultants and officers.
Summary of what they said below:
The Future Brixton project would bring a lot of new investment into Brixton. New jobs and homes.
The full 60 page report on the consultation up to now is here
The consultation identified 12 development principles which people were asked to rate. The top four were affordable housing - which was truly affordable, culture and community, car parking for market and affordable workspace and retail.
There will be new car parking space on the old Ice Rink site. Either a smaller car park at ground level or a larger multi story car park.
The idea of a hotel where the disused building by station on Popes road was not fully supported. Two thirds had concerns. Such as does Brixton need another hotel.
The proposal was to "activate" the space between the railway lines. With retail on ground level. Above that an opportunity for workspace and homes higher up.
The site would be able to have additional retail, light industrial and artists studios. They did say artist studios but its not on the website. There are artists studios in some of the arches. Which are in danger of being lost if there is new development.
Design approach.
The design approach was to look at the use of the space and environment. There is opportunity for a new and improved public realm. Particularly by the Rec alongside Brixton Station and between Rec and Ice Rink site. Also extension of Brixton Village with a new covered market space. At higher levels flats with their own outdoor space. About 250 units. To put this amount in the heights would be 15 to 18 stories. There would be a new "public square" on Popes road with new entrance to station.
The development brief that would go to a "development partner" is not the actual architectural design itself. This comes at later stage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
After this there were some questions/ points from those present:
The building of 250 units and improvements would have a knock on effect of increasing land values in surrounding area and thus putting up rents of private renters.
The answer from Council officer:
The Council was encouraging the building of more housing. This was in line with planning policy. This would help to ease pressure on housing. Officer did not refute that land values around the area may increase.
Someone from London Citizens said that they wanted affordable housing to be based on medium income for the area. Rather than the up to 80% of market rent that is classified as affordable but in reality is not to most people.
Answer from officer:
40% of the housing on the site will be affordable ( in theory) and based on the up to 80% of market rent model. The officers will use the affordable model are using on other sites in Lambeth- a "blended" rate. That is larger family units will be set at around 60% of market rent to make them approximately similar to Council target rent. One bed single person flats will be nearer to the 80% of market rent. ie not really affordable. Lambeth Council officers reckon this is good deal. It means they can get larger family sized units ( 3 beds) at rents which will not be affected by benefit caps. (Single people are low priority for the Council.)
The proposal include a lot of tall buildings. This will affect the skyline. The Council have produced a Tall Building study which says how tall buildings should be in specific areas.
Answer from officer:
The heights of buildings will take into account the tall building study.
(There appears to be an argument about how much height of buildings is affected by being in Brixton. Most of which is in Conservation area. So I am not sure there is definite answer to how tall certain buildings can be yet.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Officer said that the next stage will be for the Council to agree a "development brief". The Council will need to define its relationship with the other big landowner on the site- Network Rail. In theory NR could decide on its own what to do with its land and apply for planning permission. The Council is likely to seek a relationship with NR to make a coherent scheme for all the site.
The officers will put a report into the Cabinet of the Council ( the main decision making body of the Council consisting of Cllrs). The Cabinet will agree the development brief or amend it. This will take place in April/ May. A full planning application will go in around Autumn 2016.
There will be more consultation later on as the project progresses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We were split up into groups to discuss the proposals
We wrote our comments on the sheets provided by consultants. I do not have yet the full report for this meeting. The consultants asked specific questions on homes, heights of building and uses.
There was a summing up at the end from each group so here are some for my notes on what came up.
Concerns about putting people living above other uses ( workshops/ retail). This might be detrimental to the living environment. There would need to be good management and security for the housing if it was above a other uses.
At my table we did not think there should be housing between the railway lines when so many other uses were on the same site. That this would not work. Instead we said there should be new public space. Also the new blocks between railway lines would be inappropriate heights for the existing streetscape of Brixton.
Everyone agreed that truly affordable housing was very important. Some said they did not mind how tall buildings were as long as that meant the maximum affordable housing.
Air quality- was a study to be done about this? As a lot of new homes would be on the site.
As the buildings were high and therefore highly visible the architecture should be of a high standard.
Instead of hotel a youth hostel or homeless centre was suggested instead.
The new retail should be affordable shops that retained the culture and flavour of the area and not just new more expensive restaurants/ bars. Existing traders should be protected and the market not diluted.
Pushing the existing light industrial further out east was wrong approach. Some of the big arches were used by well established arts group "The bureau of Silly Ideas" to fabricate large pieces for example.
The car park led to differing opinions. Some thought it was necessary for the market. Others thought car use should be discouraged and greener form of transport use encouraged by less car parking space. It would be possible to "filter" out certain types of traffic from the area. ie private cars but allow traders vehicles, delivery vehicles and buses.
(The Council said it is thinking of doing an experiment like up at Loughborough Junction closing some roads etc around market area to through traffic. Not sure yet exactly how this will work).
Suggested that there should be secure cycle parking as this was not on the proposal drawings. Also Boris bikes in the market area.
................................................................................................................................................................................
Last edited:
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
Part two of notes:
A few comments by me on all the above.
The Council and consultants have taken on board the fact that people top priorities are "affordable housing" and "culture and community" There is no mechanism/ delivery model in how these concerns will be met.
The affordable housing on Somerleyton road will be dealt differently from the other sites.
Developers use "feasibility studies" to reduce the amount of affordable housing down from the 40%. I do not know in what ways Lambeth will seek to stop this happening on Brixton Central. As it looks like they Council have decided they will be seeking a development "partner".
The other main issue is Network Rail. I did ask senior officer about this. Told him that Network Rail were now classified as a public company. Implying that they should not be purely profit driven. So seek to not push up rents that push out existing traders/ small business/ artist studios.
He said that Network Rail profit from its property was meant to be ploughed back into the railway network. ie they were supposed to maximize return from the property ( mainly arches in Brixton) they own. This imo would lead to the existing business in Brixton Station road going in the future. On the plans it says those arches will be "refurbished". Whatever that means.
The consultation found that the 4th priority for people was affordable workspace and retail. So its an issue of local concern. I saw no suggestions from Council side about how to do this. Apart from the usual Council pet scheme of business "start up" units. Which is not really the issue. The issue is how to safeguard the existing small business and traders.
So whilst all the right noises are made by the Council the reality is that the Brixton Central scheme is liable to be mainly about financial "feasibility" and the return on investment that the site can produce.
Looks to me that Council will put forward argument that this is "inward investment" into Brixton that will produce jobs for local people and knock on effects for other business.
Council will argue that they will ensure that jobs/ training will go to local people. That the 40% affordable housing is the best they can do in the limits put on them by central government and Boris.
There is a gulf between what the range of local people who voiced an opinion actually want and what the Council (Labour) will deliver in reality.
I did object to the demolition of International House. Its an integral part of the Brixton Rec design and should be retained. I do not think they ( Council / consultants) had really thought about that.
Also I did say that the potential of the Rec as part of the site has not been dealt with in these proposals. A lot of the outside of the Rec could be used.
Another issue that came up in my group was questioning if all the new retail was needed in the long term. It could be in the future that more workspace/ light industrial was more needed. So the proposals do not justify the need for extension to Brixton Village. The extension will be on Network Rail land. Just because Brixton Village is seen as success by Council and Network Rail at the moment does not mean that it will be in the future.
A few comments by me on all the above.
The Council and consultants have taken on board the fact that people top priorities are "affordable housing" and "culture and community" There is no mechanism/ delivery model in how these concerns will be met.
The affordable housing on Somerleyton road will be dealt differently from the other sites.
Developers use "feasibility studies" to reduce the amount of affordable housing down from the 40%. I do not know in what ways Lambeth will seek to stop this happening on Brixton Central. As it looks like they Council have decided they will be seeking a development "partner".
The other main issue is Network Rail. I did ask senior officer about this. Told him that Network Rail were now classified as a public company. Implying that they should not be purely profit driven. So seek to not push up rents that push out existing traders/ small business/ artist studios.
He said that Network Rail profit from its property was meant to be ploughed back into the railway network. ie they were supposed to maximize return from the property ( mainly arches in Brixton) they own. This imo would lead to the existing business in Brixton Station road going in the future. On the plans it says those arches will be "refurbished". Whatever that means.
The consultation found that the 4th priority for people was affordable workspace and retail. So its an issue of local concern. I saw no suggestions from Council side about how to do this. Apart from the usual Council pet scheme of business "start up" units. Which is not really the issue. The issue is how to safeguard the existing small business and traders.
So whilst all the right noises are made by the Council the reality is that the Brixton Central scheme is liable to be mainly about financial "feasibility" and the return on investment that the site can produce.
Looks to me that Council will put forward argument that this is "inward investment" into Brixton that will produce jobs for local people and knock on effects for other business.
Council will argue that they will ensure that jobs/ training will go to local people. That the 40% affordable housing is the best they can do in the limits put on them by central government and Boris.
There is a gulf between what the range of local people who voiced an opinion actually want and what the Council (Labour) will deliver in reality.
I did object to the demolition of International House. Its an integral part of the Brixton Rec design and should be retained. I do not think they ( Council / consultants) had really thought about that.
Also I did say that the potential of the Rec as part of the site has not been dealt with in these proposals. A lot of the outside of the Rec could be used.
Another issue that came up in my group was questioning if all the new retail was needed in the long term. It could be in the future that more workspace/ light industrial was more needed. So the proposals do not justify the need for extension to Brixton Village. The extension will be on Network Rail land. Just because Brixton Village is seen as success by Council and Network Rail at the moment does not mean that it will be in the future.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
Latest update from Council on the future of the Rec.
Council have produced a "first phase report" on the Rec:
The report is long. And was a pain to open due to size. A lot of it is diagrams and charts so its not to much to read.
The next "phase" is to consult people next year more about actual uses etc of Rec.
The first phase report brings together a lot of information about Rec. The next stage is to use this info to make decisions and choices for the way forward.
Council have produced a "first phase report" on the Rec:
The report is long. And was a pain to open due to size. A lot of it is diagrams and charts so its not to much to read.
The next "phase" is to consult people next year more about actual uses etc of Rec.
The first phase report brings together a lot of information about Rec. The next stage is to use this info to make decisions and choices for the way forward.
And so, yet again, Lambeth council repeats its apparently favourite tactic; keep asking the question in different ways until it gets the answer it wanted all along.
Tricky Skills
Well-Known Member
That is a BEAST of a report to try and digest 
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
That is a BEAST of a report to try and digest
I have written some notes/comments on it. Will see if I can put them some of them here. Its a public document so its fair enough to comment on it.
Its a monster doc but a lot of its diagrams/ graphs so not as much to read as one might have thought.
Its an example of Lambeth putting out a lot of information in public domain instead of waiting for an FOI. So the doc is example of what you were talking about on the fireworks thread regarding FOI.
Greebo One thing that does come from the doc is that the Council are serious about decision to keep the Rec and refurbish it. Its early days yet but they are acting in good faith. This "Beast" is a compilation of information that the Council have gathered so far in one doc. Its the start of a process to plan to refurbish Rec for a 25 year life. ( This is pretty standard time).
This is a risk for the Council. The Council are going to put in 9 million to replace essentials like plant and ventilation which is coming to the end of its life. But this does not cover anything else.
Last edited:
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
The first section of the first phase report goes into demographics, types of user and location of Rec.
The Council does produce strategy for things such as leisure and sport. Private gyms have developed in London but sport/ leisure facilities are not something Councils are giving up on. Yet. One of those things that has yet to be fully privatised.
So graphs on projected age demographics. There is a projected 10% increase in population over 10 years. With an increasing % of older people +55
I am not good at figures but seems to me that to much stress can be put on projections. In particular population growth for London.
The Rec is situated in an area with a wide range of socio economic groups. That is a lot of single reasonably well off professionals as well as a section of population who are economically poor. The report recognises that there are those who do not have the funds or time to take part in sporting activities. So planning future use of Rec needs to be done in a sensitive manner to take this into account.
What I am not clear on is how the Council are going to reconcile providing affordable sport facilities with aim in the report that the Rec needs to show that it can be "self sustaining" over next 25 years.
The report does show that the the Rec is losing out on the 20s to late 30s age group. This the Council think is due to ageing gym facilities. This is where the private gyms in central London have edge over Rec imo. I know a few people who use private gyms. Some are open 24 hours which is useful for people who work odd hours etc.
The Council also note that the Rec has large number of younger users compared to other Recs. This the Council (correctly imo) see due to its having a youth zone. This is something the Council should build on imo. Its been pointed out to me that there is little for younger people in Brixton. Much of central Brixton caters for adults ( minus children).
The Council see the Rec as a "Civic Hub". They recognise its importance to the Brixton area. In particular the Brixton Central site. Its also easy to get to due to the transport links. This is something the report emphases. Nothing wrong with that.
But from what I have seen of the Brixton Centra consultation there is not joined up thinking between planning the future of Rec and the Brixton masterplan consultation. The Brixton Central masterplan consultation is much more based on producing a "feasible", ie economically attractive to developement partners, scheme. Whereas the consultation on the Rec is much more based on community needs.
You can skip to page 17 of the doc from summary of these issues.
The Council does produce strategy for things such as leisure and sport. Private gyms have developed in London but sport/ leisure facilities are not something Councils are giving up on. Yet. One of those things that has yet to be fully privatised.
So graphs on projected age demographics. There is a projected 10% increase in population over 10 years. With an increasing % of older people +55
I am not good at figures but seems to me that to much stress can be put on projections. In particular population growth for London.
The Rec is situated in an area with a wide range of socio economic groups. That is a lot of single reasonably well off professionals as well as a section of population who are economically poor. The report recognises that there are those who do not have the funds or time to take part in sporting activities. So planning future use of Rec needs to be done in a sensitive manner to take this into account.
What I am not clear on is how the Council are going to reconcile providing affordable sport facilities with aim in the report that the Rec needs to show that it can be "self sustaining" over next 25 years.
The report does show that the the Rec is losing out on the 20s to late 30s age group. This the Council think is due to ageing gym facilities. This is where the private gyms in central London have edge over Rec imo. I know a few people who use private gyms. Some are open 24 hours which is useful for people who work odd hours etc.
The Council also note that the Rec has large number of younger users compared to other Recs. This the Council (correctly imo) see due to its having a youth zone. This is something the Council should build on imo. Its been pointed out to me that there is little for younger people in Brixton. Much of central Brixton caters for adults ( minus children).
The Council see the Rec as a "Civic Hub". They recognise its importance to the Brixton area. In particular the Brixton Central site. Its also easy to get to due to the transport links. This is something the report emphases. Nothing wrong with that.
But from what I have seen of the Brixton Centra consultation there is not joined up thinking between planning the future of Rec and the Brixton masterplan consultation. The Brixton Central masterplan consultation is much more based on producing a "feasible", ie economically attractive to developement partners, scheme. Whereas the consultation on the Rec is much more based on community needs.
You can skip to page 17 of the doc from summary of these issues.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
The next part of report goes into issues of how how the building is used.
As the Rec was originally part of a larger plan for Brixton some aspects of it do not work as well. There are unused spaces that would have been part of a elevated walkway around the new planned Brixton that never happened.
The "circulation" inside the building is also seen as a problem. The most used facilities are higher up the building, the entrance is small and not located at street level. The atrium ( the central well) is a hindrance according to the report.
This is where I do have concerns. There are after this proposals for different internal layouts. That the architects reckon would lead to better "circulation" in the Rec. These include proposed new entrances and getting rid of/ altering atrium area.
I feel that the architects are to negative about the atrium space. The Rec was originally designed to be not just a sports facility but a public space. Like an indoor square. The architects do not have a vision for the Rec. They are seeing it more as a series of technical problems to overcome. The first part of the report says the Rec is a Civic hub.
Page 24 of the report shows the unused/ underused space. Its a lot. 24% or 35% with the basement bowling green. They also note "double height" areas. Hope this does not mean they are think of boxing off areas. One thing about Rec is that its does not feel cramped. Its an open airy space.
This section of the report does not imo look at Rec design in a positive manner. For example the climbers at the Rec have proposed a floor to ceiling climbing wall in the atrium. Which I think would be a good addition to the atrium. Make positive use of this unique space.
What I am concerned about in design terms is that it could lead to making the inside of Rec look like any other bland but functional space. People may "circulate" in more rational manner. But is this what people really want? The quickest route from entrance to gym? The Council also notes in earlier part of report that the thing people like about Rec is the mixing of people that happens in it. I would argue that the design of building does play some part in this.
The design section of the report has little to say about the outside space. This is something that I would like to see being looked at. The report notes that there is a lot of unused space outside. I would like to see better use of the space. At moment a lot of it is closed off or people are not encouraged to use it.
As the Rec was originally part of a larger plan for Brixton some aspects of it do not work as well. There are unused spaces that would have been part of a elevated walkway around the new planned Brixton that never happened.
The "circulation" inside the building is also seen as a problem. The most used facilities are higher up the building, the entrance is small and not located at street level. The atrium ( the central well) is a hindrance according to the report.
This is where I do have concerns. There are after this proposals for different internal layouts. That the architects reckon would lead to better "circulation" in the Rec. These include proposed new entrances and getting rid of/ altering atrium area.
I feel that the architects are to negative about the atrium space. The Rec was originally designed to be not just a sports facility but a public space. Like an indoor square. The architects do not have a vision for the Rec. They are seeing it more as a series of technical problems to overcome. The first part of the report says the Rec is a Civic hub.
Page 24 of the report shows the unused/ underused space. Its a lot. 24% or 35% with the basement bowling green. They also note "double height" areas. Hope this does not mean they are think of boxing off areas. One thing about Rec is that its does not feel cramped. Its an open airy space.
This section of the report does not imo look at Rec design in a positive manner. For example the climbers at the Rec have proposed a floor to ceiling climbing wall in the atrium. Which I think would be a good addition to the atrium. Make positive use of this unique space.
What I am concerned about in design terms is that it could lead to making the inside of Rec look like any other bland but functional space. People may "circulate" in more rational manner. But is this what people really want? The quickest route from entrance to gym? The Council also notes in earlier part of report that the thing people like about Rec is the mixing of people that happens in it. I would argue that the design of building does play some part in this.
The design section of the report has little to say about the outside space. This is something that I would like to see being looked at. The report notes that there is a lot of unused space outside. I would like to see better use of the space. At moment a lot of it is closed off or people are not encouraged to use it.
leanderman
Street Party: July 2
I really like the idea of them trying to tackle the problems of unused interior space, the strange atrium, poor circulation and entrance issues.
But I also like the climbing idea, if feasible.
But I also like the climbing idea, if feasible.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
The last section of the report is appendix on BREEAM, Passivhaus, Plant/ Ventilation replacement schedule and also new proposed locations.
The appendix about BREEAM is quite technical. Its good that Council will be using outside guidance on this. BREEAM is largely ( I think. Someone correct me if I am wrong) about sustainability and low carbon foot print. It does , interestingly, cover the actual building process.
BREEAM is done by independent assessor who oversees how the project is fulfilling guidelines. The project gets points for targets it reaches. The finished project then gets a rating up to "Excellent". So it depends on what the Council wants to aim for. From report looks like "Very Good". One level below excellent.
BREEAM is a well used industry standard.
Passivvhaus.
This is the greenest building standard. Usually used on new build but old buildings can be retrofitted.
However before the Council can look at this option seriously an survey of the building envelope needs to be done. This has not been done so far. The major loss of heat/ energy is through the walls, roof etc - the buildings envelope. Until this is done no decisions on Passivhaus practicality can be taken.
A Passivhaus building can radically reduce energy use (70 to 90%) and carbon footprint. Its above BREEAM very good.
The appendix about BREEAM is quite technical. Its good that Council will be using outside guidance on this. BREEAM is largely ( I think. Someone correct me if I am wrong) about sustainability and low carbon foot print. It does , interestingly, cover the actual building process.
BREEAM is done by independent assessor who oversees how the project is fulfilling guidelines. The project gets points for targets it reaches. The finished project then gets a rating up to "Excellent". So it depends on what the Council wants to aim for. From report looks like "Very Good". One level below excellent.
BREEAM is a well used industry standard.
Passivvhaus.
This is the greenest building standard. Usually used on new build but old buildings can be retrofitted.
However before the Council can look at this option seriously an survey of the building envelope needs to be done. This has not been done so far. The major loss of heat/ energy is through the walls, roof etc - the buildings envelope. Until this is done no decisions on Passivhaus practicality can be taken.
A Passivhaus building can radically reduce energy use (70 to 90%) and carbon footprint. Its above BREEAM very good.
Similar threads
