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

[colacubes]

Has the pub actually closed yet?

Still open at the moment. For how long seems to be a mystery at this stage and I think depends on whether the planning permission goes through.

 

[Onket]

I see. Thanks. Only heard about this the other day.

 

[CH1]

It is owned by Conway Taverns but May Developments, or whatever they are called has registered an option. I.e. They have probably paid an amount to CT for the right to purchase the property for an agreed sum in a defined period. They can then apply for planning permission and go through with the purchase if the application is successful or not it if rejected. I'd imagine CT had no idea that an 11 storey building might be possible on the site.

Talking to an old licensed trade hand in the Beehive tonight. He reckoned that the Canterbury was leased by Burroughs Gin to Conway Taverns many years ago. Rushy is this obsolete/erroneous information? Burroughs is apparently part of Pernod Ricard these days. If true it makes the situation even more complicated.

 

[Rushy]

Talking to an old licensed trade hand in the Beehive tonight. He reckoned that the Canterbury was leased by Burroughs Gin to Conway Taverns many years ago. Rushy is this obsolete/erroneous information? Burroughs is apparently part of Pernod Ricard these days. If true it makes the situation even more complicated.

I took the info from the current ( a few weeks ago) Land Registry records.

 

[editor]

Update here:

May Developments has submitted its planning application to redevelop the Canterbury Arms, on the corner of Pope’s Road and Canterbury Crescent in Brixton, with a new nine-storey residential, commercial and community building.

The proposed building will include 31 units, in a mix of one, two and three-bedroom homes, of which 11 will be affordable. Also included in the planning application is a 1,745 sq ft space proposed for commercial community uses which will be fitted out and available at a substantial discount to market rent, along with a landscaped garden square at the front of the building and secure parking space for up to 42 bicycles.

http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2013/08/...replace-it-with-a-nine-storey-block-of-flats/

 

[clandestino]

The reference number May Developments has posted doesn't return any results on the Lambeth site, but if you search for Canterbury Crescent, you get this which has a slightly different ref number:

13/03273/FUL

Application Received​

Mon 22 Jul 2013

Address​

Canterbury Hotel 8 Canterbury Crescent London SW9 7QD

Proposal​

Demolition of the existing building (Public House) and redevelopment to provide a 9 storey residential property compromising of 31 residential dwellings, 162sqm of flexible A3 (Restaurant and cafe and/or A4 Drinking Establishment and/or B1 (Office) and/or D1 (Non-residential Institutions) and/or Community Enterprise, Communal Garden Space and 42 cycle parking spaces.

 

[editor]

I suspect that's the earlier application.

 

[clandestino]

It was made after the public consultation which was in June. It contains the same info as quoted, just in slightly different wording. What difference would a later application have to this one?

 

[Crispy]

Should be able to go to Related APplications, or the Property page to see if there's a newer spplication for the site

 

[editor]

It was made after the public consultation which was in June. It contains the same info as quoted, just in slightly different wording. What difference would a later application have to this one?

The later application would presumably be designed to reflect some of the feedback from the public (that they didn't seem particular interested in hearing, given the hopelessly unwieldy web form).

 

[clandestino]

The later application would presumably be designed to reflect some of the feedback from the public (that they didn't seem particular interested in hearing, given the hopelessly unwieldy web form).

Or they've quoted the ref number slightly wrongly, so people can't put comments/feedback on the council website...

I think I'm going to paste the email I sent as my feedback to the consultation as a comment on the Lambeth application.

 

[editor]

I've asked May Developments to email me the PDF.

 

[Dexter Deadwood]

If it helps, this is what i received in the post yesterday.


Sorry having trouble resizing it

 

[clandestino]

Thanks DD!

 

[editor]

I've posted up details of the updated application and there's two huge files to download showing off more.

This is the final design which apparently "“relates closely to Brixton’s vernacular period architecture."

It still looks like an office block to me.

More info and links: http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2013/08/...l-replace-the-canterbury-arms-pub-in-brixton/

 

[Crispy]

That's actually much more refined than the previous images. Looks quite Chicago-ish above street level. Not sure about the arches :-/

 

[editor]

That's actually much more refined than the previous images. Looks quite New York-ish above street level. Not sure about the arches :-/

It's an improvement on the previous renders, but then we are seeing it in a particularly dramatic - and no doubt flattering - illustration.


There is still not a single thing on the façade that I would associate with Brixton's heritage - those arches make it it look more like the old wharves around London Bridge to me - and it continues to look like a rather bland office block to me.

 

[Crispy]

I agree, there's nothing particularly Brixton about it. But as these things go, it's not bad.

 

[Rushy]

I agree, there's nothing particularly Brixton about it. But as these things go, it's not bad.

I guess the arches are supposed to relate to the railways arches which seems inappropriate / tenuous. The small garden ones look tricksy. But I like the building on the whole.

 

[editor]

I guess the arches are supposed to relate to the railways arches which seems inappropriate / tenuous. The small garden ones look tricksy. But I like the building on the whole.

It's leagues above the bland slab that is Brixton Square, but is it better than the current building and does it add anything architecturally of note to the area? I think not.

I would have liked to have seen something that incorporated the pub, which is a well preserved example of good Victorian architecture.

 

[Rushy]

It's leagues above the bland slab that is Brixton Square, but is it better than the current building and does it add anything architecturally of note to the area? I think not.

I would have liked to have seen something that incorporated the pub, which is a well preserved example of good Victorian architecture.

Incorporating the pub would be great but rather limiting - new flats are good for the city. As I said before on this thread - I think the uppers are fine but the ground floor should be more human scale, whether this reflects the Victorian heritage of the site or a more modern crafted character e.g. FAT architects. I guess they are trying to do that with the garden arches but it is bland.

I wonder if there has been much architectural exploration generally of how to incorporate smaller Victorian buildings and streetscapes into the taller structures that we need? On a large scale this was done beautifully with Foster's Hearst Tower in NY. Not sure if it would work so successfully on a smaller scale though.

 

[Crispy]

I wonder if there has been much architectural exploration generally of how to incorporate smaller Victorian buildings and streetscapes into the taller structures that we need? On a large scale this was done beautifully with Foster's Hearst Tower in NY. Not sure if it would work so successfully on a smaller scale though.

That sort of thing has the nickname of "Death Masking". The facade is maintained, but the interior is demolished and replaced. You see it in The City all the time - C19th grand stone facade, but they've squeezed an extra floor inside and the windows don't line up.

It's tricky to build over existing buildings because the existing structure isn't designed to take the extra load. In many cases, it's not even properly designed to take the existing load! In The Canterbury's case, there's no space on the Pope's Road side for a structural column, so any development that preserved the pub would have to go around it, and not over.

Otherwise, it would have just death masked it and then you're not really left with much worth keeping.

 

[DJWrongspeed]

I actually think it's a bit timid, why not go up and splat some paint around.

I think whole thing is misguided. There's no answer to the question "Why are you destroying an grand victorian pub ?"

 

[Crispy]

I think whole thing is misguided. There's no answer to the question "Why are you destroying an grand victorian pub ?"

There is an answer, it's just not very palatable: £££

 

[Rushy]

I actually think it's a bit timid, why not go up and splat some paint around.

I was admiring this colourful effort by Renzo Piano (Shard) from Centrepoint yesterday evening.

 

[editor]

I was admiring this colourful effort by Renzo Piano (Shard) from Centrepoint yesterday evening.

Yeah, I like those although the 'retail experience' in the middle of that complex is a hideous windswept thing.

 

[Rushy]

Yeah, I like those although the 'retail experience' in the middle of that complex is a hideous windswept thing.

That's a shame. I've not seen inside.

 

[leanderman]

Looks OK to me. Like all those blocks in East London.

In terms of social utility, and at a time of housing crisis, it would be hard to argue that a pub should take precedence over homes.

Reports here have varied as to how busy the pub currently is.

 

[editor]

Looks OK to me. Like all those blocks in East London.

In terms of social utility, and at a time of housing crisis, it would be hard to argue that a pub should take precedence over homes.

If you're arguing from the perspective of the housing crisis, then you should be arguing for social/affordable housing, not upmarket, private housing that obliterates a building serving a social function in the community.

 

[leanderman]

If you're arguing from the perspective of the housing crisis, then you should be arguing for social/affordable housing, not upmarket, private housing that obliterates a building serving a social function in the community.

Some of the provision in the block will have to be social or affordable.

All new homes ease supply pressures, whether social or private.

As the pub closes other drinking places have opened: Effra Social, Craft, Seven.