Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Canterbury Arms, Brixton to be turned into flats - planning application

editor said:
That was just about confirmed today although it may be some years before it happens.

Here's how the proposed development for the pub site looks:

canterbury-arms-plans-25.jpg


http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2013/06/...ans-unveiled-a-nine-storey-residential-block/
Click to expand...
My gut reaction is it looks like Brixton Square with anorexia
 
High Definition said:
David McCormack told me that May would be prepared to offer to space to a local community group at an affordable rent - he suggested 20% of local rent levels for A1 units - and that they would agree to offer the space fully fitted out.
Click to expand...
Good work. We need to find some way of holding them to this 'commitment' - Crispy lang rabbie do you know if stuff like this can be written in to the planning application?
 
Great reports guys. That's pretty much what I got out of meeting with them but didn't have time to post up.
 
High Definition said: ↑
David McCormack told me that May would be prepared to offer to space to a local community group at an affordable rent - he suggested 20% of local rent levels for A1 units - and that they would agree to offer the space fully fitted out.​
Brixton Hatter said: Good work. We need to find some way of holding them to this 'commitment' - Crispy lang rabbie do you know if stuff like this can be written in to the planning application?​
If the application is approved, then the way to hold the developer to the "commitment" is to make sure it's included in the section 106 agreement with the Council. This is the legally binding agreement which sets out the conditions which the developer has to meet before he can build the scheme and sell the housing units. The main elements in the s106 (sometimes referred to as the Heads of Terms) are normally included in the report which the planning officer prepares for Lambeth's Planning Applications Committee - where the application is being recommended for approval there is a section at the end in legal language which sets out the planning conditions which will be included in the s106.
Therefore, the way to go, If we want the development to include affordable community space, which will be fitted out by the developer and offered to a local community organisation, is to make sure it's listed in the committee report as one of the s106 conditions. If it's not in the committee report, then we need to attend the Planning Applications Committee and ask members to specify that they want this to be a s106 condition.
Of course, all this assumes the development will go ahead. Personally I don't like what May Developments are proposing - it's too big, too ugly and doesn't include any affordable housing - and I'd prefer it if the Canterbury Arms wasn't demolished. However, like Brixton Hatter, I think it's going to be difficult to stop this development as Lambeth are clearly supporting it. If the development is going to happen anyway, I'd want to focus my efforts on securing a useful community benefit.
Incidentally, the estimate of 20% of market rent for a community user came from David McCormack after I asked him to define "affordable". If we're going to be pushing for community space on the ground floor then I'd ask for a peppercorn rent (legal jargon for rent free) rather than 20%.
 
The point I raised is that without any kind of soundproofing or built in amenities, they may find it hard to provide a space that's genuinely attractive to community groups. It's taken a fair bit of effort to get the tenant's hall in the Barrier Block up and running, and I'd wager we offer it a lot cheaper than what's being proposed here.

The kind of thing that locals are often looking for is space for rehearsals (music/drama), birthday parties, retirement parties, meeting spaces etc etc, some of which create a fair bit of noise.

I'm pretty sure people would rather be somewhere comfortable where they can relax/hang out with a drink/tea before/after rather than troop into an empty space.

That's not to say that I want to put them off the idea of the community use space - I'm all for it - but if they don't think it through properly they may end up with yet another Junction/Viaduct empty space underneath.
 
Nice photos by editor. I had forgotten that the interior has never been modernised. Be a pity to lose the interior of this pub.

I also went to the exhibition. Like Brixton Hatter and High Definition I was concerned that promises from the developer of community space on ground floor need to be written into the planning conditions. I do not think it needs to be written into a Section106. It can be written into conditions for the planning application to be accepted.

If the developer is keen to offer this then it can be written into planning conditions. The Section 106 can be evaluated separately. If there is one.

I was wondering why the developer was so eager to offer a commercial space as cheaper community space.

I was surprised at this. Why would a developer offer this? Normally they want to squeeze as money out of a site as they can.

Perhaps the bad publicity that Tescos have got recently means the developer is concerned that knocking down this pub will not be liked locally.

It has to be remembered that developers are good at applying for alterations to planning applications once they have started building. (Barratts and Tescos).

I was not keen on this design. It just a bland box. It did not grab me as anything special. To much recent building in Brixton is boring and bland. (Brixton Square and the flats next to it).

The colours in the drawings are misleading. The architect said that they were looking at using stocks ( old bricks) of similar colour to the old school building and Rec. In order to make the building fit in with adjacent older buildings.

The detail on proposed building is supposed to be influenced by architecture in the area. Like Bradys, Town Hall and old Prince of Wales pub. Its minimal influence imo. As those buildings all have a "presence" imo. Bradys with its clock tower, Prince of Wales curved front and the Town Hall - a solid municipal piece of architecture.

This design has no features that draw one to look at it or take notice of it. I would not mind something totally different from the nearby buildings if it looked at all interesting.

Also this building is liable to influence what happens at the "Ice Rink" site. The Council owned site next door to it. The south end of the building is going to be a blank wall in case the Council want to build right up to the edge of its site.

It would have been better to do the whole site in one go to make it a coherent design. But that’s not the developers fault.

I did wonder if there is a case to halt building works on this site until the Ice Rink site comes up for development. Or even CPO site to make a large site. That can be developed in one go.
 
Gramsci said:
The colours in the drawings are misleading. The architect said that they were looking at using stocks ( old bricks) of similar colour to the old school building and Rec. In order to make the building fit in with adjacent older buildings.
Click to expand...
They told me they weren't decided on the brick colour. I understand the budget restrictions that any kind of modern development comes under, but by bringing up all this stuff about the design supposedly reflecting local architecture they're really going to have to try a lot harder.

It looks like a bland office block in anytown, UK. It looks no better (or worse) than the Barratt Homes development. Brixton needs good architecture. This is not.
 
editor said:
They told me they weren't decided on the brick colour. I understand the budget restrictions that any kind of modern development comes under, but by bringing up all this stuff about the design supposedly reflecting local architecture they're really going to have to try a lot harder.

It looks like a bland office block in anytown, UK. It looks no better (or worse) than the Barratt Homes development. Brixton needs good architecture. This is not.
Click to expand...

I agree. Just added to my post about this.
 
High Definition said:
High Definition said: ↑​
​
David McCormack told me that May would be prepared to offer to space to a local community group at an affordable rent - he suggested 20% of local rent levels for A1 units - and that they would agree to offer the space fully fitted out.​
Brixton Hatter said: Good work. We need to find some way of holding them to this 'commitment' - Crispy lang rabbie do you know if stuff like this can be written in to the planning application?
If the application is approved, then the way to hold the developer to the "commitment" is to make sure it's included in the section 106 agreement with the Council. This is the legally binding agreement which sets out the conditions which the developer has to meet before he can build the scheme and sell the housing units. The main elements in the s106 (sometimes referred to as the Heads of Terms) are normally included in the report which the planning officer prepares for Lambeth's Planning Applications Committee - where the application is being recommended for approval there is a section at the end in legal language which sets out the planning conditions which will be included in the s106.
Therefore, the way to go, If we want the development to include affordable community space, which will be fitted out by the developer and offered to a local community organisation, is to make sure it's listed in the committee report as one of the s106 conditions. If it's not in the committee report, then we need to attend the Planning Applications Committee and ask members to specify that they want this to be a s106 condition.
Of course, all this assumes the development will go ahead. Personally I don't like what May Developments are proposing - it's too big, too ugly and doesn't include any affordable housing - and I'd prefer it if the Canterbury Arms wasn't demolished. However, like Brixton Hatter, I think it's going to be difficult to stop this development as Lambeth are clearly supporting it. If the development is going to happen anyway, I'd want to focus my efforts on securing a useful community benefit.
Incidentally, the estimate of 20% of market rent for a community user came from David McCormack after I asked him to define "affordable". If we're going to be pushing for community space on the ground floor then I'd ask for a peppercorn rent (legal jargon for rent free) rather than 20%.
Click to expand...

I concur with the opinion of my learned friend High Definition (though I have no idea who she is!)
 
we put some comments in

- Overall, I'm not supportive of the development. I would prefer to see the pub retained and the existing building redeveloped and extended. If this development does go ahead, I would like to see the following conditions in place.
- The community will decide what it wants to use any community space for; something which has the ability to appeal to a wide range of different groups would be preferable, with the space able to be used in different ways for a variety of activities (e.g. performance, community groups, children's activities, exhibitions, retail, meetings, business space etc).

- The community space should be bigger than currently suggested on the plans, with the plant room/cycle store/bin store shifted eastwards to create more space.
- Whatever the community space is to be used for, it should be fully fitted out with facilities, plumbing and electrical connections etc, ready for occupancy. The space should be flexible, with areas for potential long and short-term tenants and the ability to used in different ways. Adequate soundproofing should be installed to prevent noise leakage between community areas and residential areas. This should be written in to the planning application and section 106 agreement.
- Rent for the community space should be minimal/peppercorn, with long term committments to tenancies, and guarantees against future rent rises. Tenants should be excluded from service charges. This should be written in to the planning application and section 106 agreement.
- Outside the development on the widened pavement I would like to see benches, landscaping & greenery and bicycle parking facilities as part of the section 106 agreement.
- The "affordable" element of housing should be set as high as possible - 50% would be my suggestion, if the building is going to be as tall and dominant as this. This should be for affordable rent and council housing, as well as for shared ownership.
- More effort should be made with the design to make it similar to other existing buildings and housing. This is not achieved in the current plans.
Click to expand...
 
Much as i dislike the pub, i would prefer it stayed. I think that is unlikely. It's not my cup of tea but most of that is personal and historical. What has been proposed is an ugly nightmare. I guess they build tall next to tall. I would prefer a low level construction, five, six storeys maximum. Issues of light for Wincheap and Westgate Court. Whatever happens it's going to be chaos for local residents.
 
editor said:
Apparently it hasn't actually been sold there is some hope if anyone else expresses an interest.
Click to expand...
When I went to the exhibition I asked who owned the site - the developers said they did. Although I remember the exact wording was something like "we are in control of the site". I guess it's possible they have some sort of pre-sale agreement with the current owners, dependent on getting the planning permission?
 
If the ownership is uncertain, then it certainly is worth an unconstituted group considering Right to Bid. Twenty one signatures is all that is required. Here's the Lambeth Council documentation.

Once again - speaking in a work capacity with Locality, I wouldn't recommend Right to Bid to simply block development. But if there is the stomach to attempt a community pub, now would seem like the last chance to exercise community rights as part of the Localism Act. Get in there before any formal sale goes through. You will then have a six month heads up to prepare a formal bid, should the owner formally place the pub on the market.

Don't be daunted by market values and funding - put in the application, and then speak with My Community Rights about possible grants and funding streams.
 
I asked at the consultation and the people there said that the developers have an option on the site which presumably they'll take up if planning permission is granted.
 
Tricky Skills said:
If the ownership is uncertain, then it certainly is worth an unconstituted group considering Right to Bid. Twenty one signatures is all that is required. Here's the Lambeth Council documentation.

Once again - speaking in a work capacity with Locality, I wouldn't recommend Right to Bid to simply block development. But if there is the stomach to attempt a community pub, now would seem like the last chance to exercise community rights as part of the Localism Act. Get in there before any formal sale goes through. You will then have a six month heads up to prepare a formal bid, should the owner formally place the pub on the market.

Don't be daunted by market values and funding - put in the application, and then speak with My Community Rights about possible grants and funding streams.
Click to expand...
Thanks. This is a good idea. But I wonder whether the Canterbury has enough loyal locals to get behind something like this?

Personally, I'd like to see the pub stay, but as only an occasional punter, I'm not sure I'd have the time and motivation to get on this. There are other pubs in the area which I think are more worth my time in sorting out a right to bid/buy. But.....is anyone interested?

Does anyone know what the family tenants think about the sale?

Tricky Skills - how long is the application process? Is it difficult?
 
The application process is very simple - three sheets of A4, mainly asking you to explain why the asset is important to the community. A decision has to come from Lambeth Council within six weeks of receiving the application.

That's pretty much it.

If successful, the pub is then placed on the list of Assets of Community Value [PDF.] The owner (still to be defined?) then legally has to inform the unconstituted group if a sale is planned.

The group then has six months ahead of the private sector to put together a market value bid.
 
Anyone fancy putting together a quick article about how people can do this so I can post it on Brixton Buzz?
 
There's a thread in the SW forum about a pub in Bath where they've done this that might be worth a look. They've done really well but I have to say the numbers are a bit eye-watering - in that case they needed a million quid and it's hard to see how this would be a lot less. You need quite a lot of people to come up with £500+.

ETA: http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/the-bell-in-bath-community-trying-to-buy-it.305934/ - the Ivy House in Nunhead is a more local example.
 
Monkeygrinder's Organ said:
There's a thread in the SW forum about a pub in Bath where they've done this that might be worth a look. They've done really well but I have to say the numbers are a bit eye-watering - in that case they needed a million quid and it's hard to see how this would be a lot less. You need quite a lot of people to come up with £500+.
Click to expand...


I think both marty21 and fractionMan may have been involved with this so they may know a bit more :)
 
Monkeygrinder's Organ said:
There's a thread in the SW forum about a pub in Bath where they've done this that might be worth a look. They've done really well but I have to say the numbers are a bit eye-watering - in that case they needed a million quid and it's hard to see how this would be a lot less. You need quite a lot of people to come up with £500+.

ETA: http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/the-bell-in-bath-community-trying-to-buy-it.305934/ - the Ivy House in Nunhead is a more local example.
Click to expand...
The sale went through last week :cool: I think the Bell was lucky that it got a lot of publicity for the community buy out - thanks to some celeb support - Robert Plant, Peter Gabriel and a few others - they probably stumped up the max £20,000 - the rest of us srambled together the £500. There is supposed to be profit sharing - about £20 a year I think if it does well - but it was never about making money it was about saving an iconic Bath pub
 
Tricky Skills said:
The application process is very simple - three sheets of A4, mainly asking you to explain why the asset is important to the community. A decision has to come from Lambeth Council within six weeks of receiving the application.

That's pretty much it.

If successful, the pub is then placed on the list of Assets of Community Value [PDF.] The owner (still to be defined?) then legally has to inform the unconstituted group if a sale is planned.

The group then has six months ahead of the private sector to put together a market value bid.
Click to expand...
So could an "unincorporated voluntary organisation" (one of the things you have to be in order to put in a bid) simply be 21+ individuals who've - for example - got together for the purposes of saving a pub?
 
A recently closed pub in Hackney - The Chesham Arms , has recently been listed as a community asset - there's a group of locals trying to save it - the new owner paid over the odds and wants to turn it into offices :facepalm: it was a lovely pub - had drinks there before we got married at nearby Sutton House. I was speaking to the new owner of my local, The Crooked Billet in Clapton, who is in a group trying to save the Chesham -
 
Brixton Hatter said:
So could an "unincorporated voluntary organisation" (one of the things you have to be in order to put in a bid) simply be 21+ individuals who've - for example - got together for the purposes of saving a pub?
Click to expand...


Spot on. 21 names is all that is needed. One of the names needs to be the main contact.

Once again, disclaimer, blah blah blah - Right to Bid is not intended as a blocking mechanism for development per se, but as a genuine attempt to save community assets ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

teuchter
New development at Hardess St / Wellfit St, Loughborough Junction: 2024 planning application
2 3 4 5
Replies
126
Views
5K
teuchter
teuchter
editor
Cyclist killed in Brixton
2
Replies
32
Views
2K
T & P
T & P
blameless77
After work pint in Brixton?
Replies
12
Views
759
editor
editor
editor
Where to watch England vs Spain Euro 2024 final in Brixton
Replies
6
Views
489
madolesance
M
editor
Homophobia in Brixton
2
Replies
38
Views
5K
Tulster218
T
Back
Top Bottom