Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Brixton's Club 414 - closure, news, discussion

cuppa tee said:
I am wondering what would the consequences of the proposed change mean
for the Prince Albert pub [ and it's beer garden]
if it was to suddenly find itself next door to residential properties ?
Click to expand...
That's a very good point. I'm already VERY fed up with being heaved out of the garden ridiculously early. :mad: Fuck all these newcomer cunts. The other day there was a huge traffic jam in front of the old Brixton Cycles site while a fucking WAITROSE van sat in the bus stop for ages and ages while the driver carried fucktons of whatever to the residents of the new flats.
 
19sixtysix said:
Has anyone started registering 414 as a community asset? That might be a good start to getting serious resistance in place.
Click to expand...

You mean an asset of community value? It couldn't hurt to try but it's pretty limited (bear in mind it was introduced by the Tories). All it gets you, even if it is granted, is the right to six months to come up with the cash as a community group if the owners put the building up for sale. I don't think there are many examples of that successfully being carried out and probably none that are nightclubs. And it wouldn't preserve the club as it is - your group would then need to actually run the club. It's a pretty hard sell.

ETA: Just been trying to find some figures. As of February this year, bearing in mind the legislation was brought in in 2011, there have been approx 1800 buildings listed, and a grand total of 11 community buyouts.
 
Last edited:
Is it a valid objection to say that the new flats are not compatible with the Albert garden(s), as they will lead to future conflicts about noise?
 
I had a look at the petition this morning, and also a look at the application.

There are loads of comments registered, but the vast majority only talk about the importance of 414 in their life. Admirable, but a waste of time in planning world.

Planners can only consider aspects of non-compliance. If people want to object objectively, then they need to target defined areas of planning law.

The applicants have clearly consulted with planners as evidenced by the D&A. The case officer can't see obvious non compliance with legislation.

I'm sure there is a policy about affecting the local area, implemented to stop massive industrial units etc in residental areas.

There have been a few comments on the database about affecting the local area. Tbh I don't think objectors stand a chance, simply as the planners cannot refuse an owner's application without good reason, but for a targeted approach then that is where I'd start.
 
Monkeygrinder's Organ said:
You mean an asset of community value? It couldn't hurt to try but it's pretty limited (bear in mind it was introduced by the Tories). All it gets you, even if it is granted, is the right to six months to come up with the cash as a community group if the owners put the building up for sale. I don't think there are many examples of that successfully being carried out and probably none that are nightclubs. And it wouldn't preserve the club as it is - your group would then need to actually run the club. It's a pretty hard sell.

ETA: Just been trying to find some figures. As of February this year, bearing in mind the legislation was brought in in 2011, there have been approx 1800 buildings listed, and a grand total of 11 community buyouts.
Click to expand...

The Vauxhall Tavern community is trying to get the pub listed building status including its long term gay community use as part of the heritage. It's all about reducing the value of the building. The owners are campaigning against it.
 
19sixtysix said:
The Vauxhall Tavern community is trying to get the pub listed building status including its long term gay community use as part of the heritage. It's all about reducing the value of the building. The owners are campaigning against it.
Click to expand...

Well if someone wants to properly take it on then brilliant. I'd support them fully.

That said if all you're aiming to do is reduce the value of the building it seems a bit pointless. Obviously the owners will be against it as they'd rather be able to sell it freely without the six month delay, but they can sell it anyway eventually (and there's nothing to say they have to let the club remain as it is in the meantime). And unless the group who've registered it is seriously going to try and raise the funds what have you achieved of you do reduce the value of the building? As far as I can see just a bonus for whoever ends up buying it.

So the real question - is anyone really up for campaigning hard to raise several hundred thousand pounds at least on behalf of the club? Someone with the skills to actually make it happen? Like I say if so then brilliant, I'd even consider chipping in if it looked realistic. It's just something that gets chucked around a lot without any real intent.

As an aside I think the RVT is an ideal candidate for actually making it work. The gay community is a lot more well defined and I reckon includes a fair number of people with a strong connection to the place and available funds. I'm not so sure about the 414.
 
Monkeygrinder's Organ said:
It was the coalition (I'll leave it to you to decide if you think that makes a difference.) It was a bit of a token piece of legislation from when they were still pretending to care about the 'Big Society' after they got elected.
Click to expand...

I like to think it does. The country was fucked at the time; it needed someone to be the bad guy, and needed a tempering influence. Coalition rules.
 
19sixtysix said:
The Vauxhall Tavern community is trying to get the pub listed building status including its long term gay community use as part of the heritage. It's all about reducing the value of the building. The owners are campaigning against it.
Click to expand...
Who are the owners? It used to be owned by Lambeth Council.
 
editor said:
Or the Duke of Edinburgh. Remember the wonderful parties they used to have in their huge garden their before the nu-residents busied themselves lodging complaints about the over vibrancy of the vibrant pub they'd just moved right next to?

No wonder the Grosvenor guvnor got out before the shit could start.
Click to expand...

Is that the one on Ferndale Road? Is it shut down or did they just piss on their parties?
 
When we were looking to buy a house in 2003, we looked at one on Ferndale Rd, a few doors away from the Duke of Edinburgh. One of the factors in us ruling it out was the noise from the pub garden.
 
Twattor said:
There are loads of comments registered, but the vast majority only talk about the importance of 414 in their life. Admirable, but a waste of time in planning world.
Click to expand...

Have you any ideas, I was thinking more from a cultural point of view perhaps? but as you say that doesn't hold weight in planning. If they can approve the demolition of a grand Victorian pub, The Canterbury what hope?
 
DJWrongspeed said:
Have you any ideas, I was thinking more from a cultural point of view perhaps? but as you say that doesn't hold weight in planning. If they can approve the demolition of a grand Victorian pub, The Canterbury what hope?
Click to expand...

Maybe the one David Clapson mentions above, that the flats might conflict with the Albert, might be possible? The Ministry of Sound have been having a running battle on that for a few years so it must have some weight at least? Although I suppose the fact that the beer garden closes much earlier might rule it out.
 
interesting but how many clubs have the deep pockets of ministry? (and connections etc)
they are also protecting their name, brand and right to release endless compilations for people who like "dance music", not just the building
 
ddraig said:
interesting but how many clubs have the deep pockets of ministry? (and connections etc)
they are also protecting their name, brand and right to release endless compilations for people who like "dance music", not just the building
Click to expand...
It's not just their deep pockets that help - Ministry is very well connected via its boss, James Palumbo.
 
My 2pence worth of an objection, apologies if it's a bit inept. I'm no planning expert.

As a long term Brixton resident I object to the change use. Coldharbour Lane is a vital part of the local night time economy. Adding the proposed "creation of three self-contained residential flats at first and second floors" may well have a damaging affect on at least two late licensed premises.

These flats will undoubtedly be bought or rented to new residents who may be unaware of the lively nature of the road and complain about the noise. Residents objections can often curtail local late licenses which goes against the nature of these local businesses.
Click to expand...
 
Twattor said:
I had a look at the petition this morning, and also a look at the application.

There are loads of comments registered, but the vast majority only talk about the importance of 414 in their life. Admirable, but a waste of time in planning world.

Planners can only consider aspects of non-compliance. If people want to object objectively, then they need to target defined areas of planning law.

The applicants have clearly consulted with planners as evidenced by the D&A. The case officer can't see obvious non compliance with legislation.

I'm sure there is a policy about affecting the local area, implemented to stop massive industrial units etc in residental areas.

There have been a few comments on the database about affecting the local area. Tbh I don't think objectors stand a chance, simply as the planners cannot refuse an owner's application without good reason, but for a targeted approach then that is where I'd start.
Click to expand...
In my experience of writing objections, getting hold of the relevant local plan is a good place to start. Does the planning application fit with the stated local plan? If not, where is it different? Is there an actual need for that type of building in that area? For example is there already too much private student accommodation? Is there sufficient accommodation for families especially social housing?

Other objections can be based around potential for increased noise and potential for increased traffic and therefore increased risk of danger to people due to increased traffic volume. Objections are also possible on environmental grounds or historic site grounds.

Best of luck.
 
FAO those who do twitter and/or FB: A thunderclap's been started to save the 414.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

WhyLikeThis
Remember Vision, Bristol club ~1990?
Replies
3
Views
280
Mattym
M
editor
Where to watch England vs Spain Euro 2024 final in Brixton
Replies
6
Views
392
madolesance
M
editor
Homophobia in Brixton
2
Replies
38
Views
4K
Tulster218
T
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