What ddraig said, and it can be done on face ache as well as twatter. Legally it's not binding, but it's one way of getting you heard.WTF is a "thunderclap"?<snip>
What ddraig said, and it can be done on face ache as well as twatter. Legally it's not binding, but it's one way of getting you heard.WTF is a "thunderclap"?<snip>
There's a petition on change.org, to save the 414, for all the good it'll do, but twatter and face ache can pass on the details and get it far better coverage. The virtual equivalent of a deputation to the council.To who? Saying what?
That petition is all very well but what are you hoping Lambeth Planning will do in response to it?There's a petition on change.org, to save the 414, for all the good it'll do, but twatter and face ache can pass on the details and get it far better coverage. The virtual equivalent of a deputation to the council.
Don't have a go at me, I didn't start that thunderclap, nor am I relying on it. If you've got better ideas, go ahead pass them on, and do something else.That petition is all very well but what are you hoping Lambeth Planning will do in response to it? <snip>
How was I having a you at you Greebo?Don't have a go at me, I didn't start that thunderclap, nor am I relying on it. If you've got better ideas, go ahead pass them on, and do something else.
And now the passive aggression.How was I having a you at you Greebo?
Sure. I'll leave you to it.And now the passive aggression.
Sometimes people do irrational and pointless things when something they love is threatened. Most people don't understand the planning process, but still want to express their emotions and register their dissatisfaction with this proposal.Looks like the petition is to Lambeth to refuse the planning application. But they can only refuse it on valid planning grounds. The petition doesn't suggest what they could be so seems a bit pointless.
What's needed is a big campaign targeting the market owners, like the Save Nour campaign. Appeal to that French bloke who runs the parent company, get the BBC and the Standard interested....make the Save 414 campaign a continuation of the recent anti-gentrification protest. Get the London Black Revs involved.
I hear you. I think the only thing that might work is giving the market owners some bad PR. Then perhaps they would meet 414 half way. But could the 414 afford even a modest rent increase? It must be the world's smallest club. It can't be very profitable.Ultimately getting the applicant to change their mind is probably an approach with a reasonable chance of success; although if they've decided that the returns from 414 can be improved on by redevelopment then essentially you'd be asking them to take a financial penalty for no benefit to themselves.
In this country the planners can't refuse applications if they comply fully with all aspects of planning legislation. In this case the fact that the applicant has gone through a pre-application process, received a formal response from the planners, and then impemented the changes they asked for suggests that the planners are broadly supportive of the proposals.
Even if the committee get caught up on a wave of public opinion and refuse, the applicant would be entitled to appeal to the planning inspectorate who then consider the case purely on the basis of law. I believe any refusal at committee would inevitably be overturned on appeal.
I have to pay too, sadly. Pretty sure they are associated with or part of LAP who own the market.Just wanted to point out that the planning application is by Market Row Ltd, whereas the company running the market is Market Village Company Ltd.
It is Market Village Company Ltd which has a French connection, but may be nothing at all to do with the application. I don't feel tempted at this stage to do a Land Registry Search to find who actually owns the freehold - as I have to pay. Rushy?
So is LAP different from Market Village then? Look at the company info I uploaded -I have to pay too, sadly. Pretty sure they are associated with or part of LAP who own the market.
You don't need to be the owner to apply for planning, but if you've got half a brain you get a pretty strong legal agreement beforehand otherwise you're gifting them a value uplift at your risk and expense.So is LAP different from Market Village then? Look at the company info I uploaded -
no obvious connection between Market Row Ltd and Market Village Company Ltd.
Looks to me that Market Row Ltd must be a property company whereas Market Village Company Ltd is a facilities management company.
That's it - you've cracked it. Weird they have a coal mine in South Africa.According to this http://companycheck.co.uk/company/02229018/MARKET-ROW-LIMITED Market Row Ltd's web site is lap.co.uk, they have the same registered address and Market Row Ltd's company secretary is A.K. Thapar. And LAP's 2014 accounts say that Mr Thapar is their FD http://www.lap.co.uk/downloads/lap14.pdf.
Uncertainty for traders as Brixton Village owners InShops goes bust
Written by Tim Dickens on January 17, 2014 in Business, Community, Council, News, Uncategorized - 6 Comments
Traders in Brixton’s covered markets have been left in confusion today, after news that former owners InShops has gone bust.
InShops Centres Ltd, owned by French firm Groupe Geraud, announced on Wednesday that it will cease trading today, and many of its centres will close.
But it has emerged that Brixton Village (Granville Arcade) and Market Row markets were transferred to a separate company, Market Village Company Ltd, late last year. The markets’ manager today moved to reassure traders.
Operations manager Rachid Ghailane told the Blog: “The traders in Brixton Village and Brixton Market Row have nothing to worry about. They are now run by a new company, Market Village Company Ltd, which has been established and is in charge of the markets.
He added: “Yes, Inshops Centres Ltd has gone bankrupt, but it’s nothing to do with us in Brixton.”
Companies House Ltd records showthat Market Village Company Ltd, which now runs the covered markets, was called Inshops Ltd until an official change of name in July 2013. It is registered at the Group Geraud office and its three current directors are all senior executives at Groupe Geraud Ltd. Its parent company is listed as Geraud SA.
Traders spoken to by Brixton Blog today said they had not had any contact from InShops, market managers or Group Geraud about the changes. They were alarmed when they read reports online about other retail centres closing down as a result this week.
Binki Taylor, co-owner of Circus in Brixton Village, said: “We don’t know exactly where this leaves us and we would like to know. No-one has been in contact to explain things and we’d like to know how we’ll be effected by it.”
Head of property at Geraud UK, Philip Lamb, said: “The covered markets at Brixton are no longer associated with In Shops Centres Limited and are totally unaffected by the imminent liquidation of that company.”
I had seen that, so didn't check on LAP. Yet LAP say they own the premises (in that annual report - which is up to date).Cor Blimey, look at this, I had no idea. It explains how Market Village Company Ltd came to be:
This is where Rushy would have come in. I thought he had free access to the Land Registry but apparently not.For Market Row, LAP is the freeholder. They sold a lease to Groupe Geraud. Groupe Geraud's subsidiary, Market Village, does the management and fleeces the tenants.
What we don't know is whether 414 Coldharbour Lane is on the lease which LAP sold to Geraud. Is 414 Coldharbour Lane contiguous with the Market Row building?
Well they bought it in 1999 apparently. Can't remember when LAP got involved with the market - perhaps at the same time?Market Row Ltd is the registered owner of 414-416 Coldharbour Lane (lender is Abbey National Treasury Services Plc) and the company is a subsidiary of London & Associated Properties PLC.
All elements of social/community awareness in central Brixton seem to have evaporated in their quest to keep on rubberstamping new upmarket restaurants, business parks etc.If you ask me current Lambeth Planning thinking is completely business oriented - with business setting the agenda.
I strongly support the renovation of this late-night venue to something that would better serve the community, as proposed.
The club may be popular, but it's under-used and this particular street with little traffic in the evenings and being poorly lit, makes a bad location for a late-night venue because it inevitably leads to undesirable elements. If the local police had the resources to monitor the situation then maybe Club 414 wouldn't have this negative impact on the area but unfortunately that's not the case.
This particular stretch of Coldharbour Lane has basically been set aside for drug deals and public urination. Any improvement to this road is hugely welcome.
The comments seem to be about 20 years out of date, I would have thought.I think this is the last day for objections. Unfortunately some people have clicked 'Supports' rather than 'Objects' on the planning consultation even though their comments are all pro the club
Here's someone who actually does 'Support' the redevelopment: