Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Brixton's Club 414 - closure, news, discussion

Rushy said:
To who? Saying what?
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
There's a real outpouring of love for the venue on the planning application. It's quite touching what has been written. I just think of it as the old 414 that's always been there. Seems it really is a unique place in a big city.
 
Greebo said:
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.
Click to expand...
That petition is all very well but what are you hoping Lambeth Planning will do in response to it?

If planning were to turn down the application without a firm planning reason it will simply be appealed and lost, pointlessly costing thousands. And the club will still go.
 
Rushy said:
That petition is all very well but what are you hoping Lambeth Planning will do in response to it? <snip>
Click to expand...
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.
 
teuchter said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.

If you have any practical advice it might be an idea to share it with those people.
 
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.
 
David Clapson said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Unless we find some other way of housing our growing population, these situations (business to residential) will become even more commonplace, and unavoidable. Until there are no clubs, pubs or workspaces left.
 
Twattor said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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?
 

Attachments

  • Market Village Company Ltd.pdf
    65.4 KB · Views: 1
  • Market Row.pdf
    60.6 KB · Views: 3
CH1 said:
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?
Click to expand...
I have to pay too, sadly. Pretty sure they are associated with or part of LAP who own the market.
 
Rushy said:
I have to pay too, sadly. Pretty sure they are associated with or part of LAP who own the market.
Click to expand...
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.
 
CH1 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Cor Blimey, look at this, I had no idea. It explains how Market Village Company Ltd came to be:

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.”
Click to expand...
 
David Clapson said:
Cor Blimey, look at this, I had no idea. It explains how Market Village Company Ltd came to be:
Click to expand...
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).

So can anyone explain exactly what the arrangements are at Market Row?

I also wondered why the 414 site would be owned by Market Row Ltd. Back in the early 1980s it was empty, then squatted by Spartacus R - the Pan Africanist former member of Osibisa. I imagine the club came very shortly after the occupation was terminated by the police, in the traditional Brixton style.

Usually empty property that gets occupied belongs to the council. Maybe the council sold it to the Market company?
 
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?
 
David Clapson said:
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?
Click to expand...
This is where Rushy would have come in. I thought he had free access to the Land Registry but apparently not.

The title for 414 is available here: https://eservices.landregistry.gov....RTZWFyY2guZG8!/#Z7_32841142H83670I5FG31T538V4

£3 in written form, and extra £3 if plan is required.
 
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.
 

Attachments

  • RegisterSGL472988.pdf
    4.3 KB · Views: 14
MHF said:
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.
Click to expand...
Well they bought it in 1999 apparently. Can't remember when LAP got involved with the market - perhaps at the same time?

A local campaign might have an effect, but not necessarily on the planning decision as Twattor says.

The area is getting full of restaurant applications. Rosa's Thai Cafe is due up at the planning committee on Tuesday. Residents managed to get a stay pending further information back in March, but the application is back with a recommendation to approve on 7th July.

If you ask me current Lambeth Planning thinking is completely business oriented - with business setting the agenda.
 
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 :rolleyes:

Here's someone who actually does 'Support' the redevelopment:

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.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

editor
Cyclist killed in Brixton
2
Replies
32
Views
1K
T & P
T & P
blameless77
After work pint in Brixton?
Replies
8
Views
520
story
story
WhyLikeThis
Remember Vision, Bristol club ~1990?
Replies
3
Views
290
Mattym
M
editor
Where to watch England vs Spain Euro 2024 final in Brixton
Replies
6
Views
485
madolesance
M
editor
Homophobia in Brixton
2
Replies
38
Views
5K
Tulster218
T
Back
Top Bottom