Any chance of someone with a dig cam taking some pix of the overall building and the tiles if they wander by?
Coldharbour Lane redevelopment
- Thread starter Mr. Lee
- Start date
I think AK may have seen drawings at the planning office from what he said -- comments above.hatboy said:
Fuzzy
Hearts Cov
just had a thought. have any of you lambeth residents heard of a housing needs survey? if so can you get hold of it or view it. it should let you know what type housing is most in need in within the borough. i can hazard a guess that its not going to be 1 and 2 bed apartments and that more likely family housing is required. its another reason to throw at the planners to say that flatted developments are not needed for lambeth residents. speak to someone in the housing department who deals with section 106 agreements arising through new housing developments and they should be able to tell you what is and isnt needed in central brixton.
PacificOcean
Unhinged User
What I have never understood about these luxury developments in places like Coldharbour lane is who the hell buys them? It's bad enough having to live here when you don't have a choice but to pay £250,000 for the honour? 
Nice one fuzzy. I like your thinking.Fuzzy said:
Lambeth is always going on about housing homeless families -- while busly selling its stock to the private sector.
Pacific -- many people would like to live on or near CHL, but only with a lovely secure gated courtyard/carpark so they feel nice and safe and keep the locals out.
IntoStella said:Pacific -- many people would like to live on or near CHL, but only with a lovely secure gated courtyard/carpark so they feel nice and safe and keep the locals out.
Err... isn't the only gated block of flats on Coldharbour lane at the moment Clifton mansions subject of an article by Anna Key
Or is that the right sort of gated development? 
http://www.urban75.org/brixton/features/yuppies.html
Photo here:
http://www.urban75.org/brixton/photos/307.html
On a more serious note what does the UDP say about this area? Even if the place is to be developed it would ruin the look of that corner if the frontage was redeveloped....grrr....
Pacific - I'm about to come and live on Coldharbour lane!
You do say the daftest things, Bob.Bob said:
Clifton is hardly a new development, is it? Besides, the gates are there to keep undesirables *in*. You ever been in Clifton? Yuppie it ain't.Of course, lots of property developers would love to get their hands on it. After all, we cannot have *poor* people living in prime real estate, can we?
That is the exclusive right of the rich. God I love social housing. Especially in places like Bloomsbury, Fitzrovia and Cheyne Walk. Swivel on that, you grasping fuckers. 
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
hendo said:
Yes I found this as well.The name Milegate rings a bell.Ill have to check but it may have been associated with a previous retrospective planning application not a hundred mile away from this site.If Im correct it will make more sense about who is behind it.This might not be a Developer coming from outside but someone cashing in on rising land prices in central Brixton.
lang rabbie
Je ne regrette les gazebos
Gramsci said:
They were the applicant at 411-417 Coldharbour Lane London SW9 8LQ
See page 107 of Planning Applications Committee Reports- 10 February 2004 (4.9Mb pdf document so slow to download on dial-up connection)
The application was deferred for the odd reason
AFAIK it has never come back to the committee
lang rabbie
Je ne regrette les gazebos
Curioser and curioser
The application for 419-423 is advertised in this morning's SLP.
There is also a new application listed there for the former Brixton Cycles site:
Does somebody with more time available this morning want to look that up on the Lambeth Planning drying paint viewer?
The application for 419-423 is advertised in this morning's SLP.
There is also a new application listed there for the former Brixton Cycles site:
Does somebody with more time available this morning want to look that up on the Lambeth Planning drying paint viewer?
Fuzzy
Hearts Cov
housing above flats is not a bad thing. means that town centres have people in them once the shops shut giving life to the town on a night. it also makes good use of space that would otherwise not be used.
edited to add, if the retail use at ground floor is retained i think using hte space above a shop for flats is a good idea.
edited to add, if the retail use at ground floor is retained i think using hte space above a shop for flats is a good idea.
lang rabbie
Je ne regrette les gazebos
It's possible that what is now proposed for the Brixton Cycles site is a fairly good scheme, if they have dropped the attempt to get an A3 use (food/drink/bah) at ground floor level, even though many people will be disappointed if there is no social housing.
It's just that with the planning history of the site, many locals need some convincing that the shops will be actively marketed at reasonable rents for retail, rather than the owners returning after eighteen months claiming that there is no interest in them and asking for A3 to maintain an "active frontage" on Coldharbour Lane.
I wouldn't be averse to an infill scheme at 419-423, but it needs to be
sensitive to the former temperance billiard hall, and preferably keep and refurbish the Edwardian ground floor shop surrounds which are a continuation of the temperance hall block.
It's just that with the planning history of the site, many locals need some convincing that the shops will be actively marketed at reasonable rents for retail, rather than the owners returning after eighteen months claiming that there is no interest in them and asking for A3 to maintain an "active frontage" on Coldharbour Lane.
I wouldn't be averse to an infill scheme at 419-423, but it needs to be
sensitive to the former temperance billiard hall, and preferably keep and refurbish the Edwardian ground floor shop surrounds which are a continuation of the temperance hall block.
prunus
Tick tock.
lang rabbie said:
As no-one seems to care about railway bridges like I do, here is some small info from Lambeth Planning site:
The Brixton Cycles application (if that is 435-437 CHL as I think) is being made by 'TBAC Ltd' - Companies House website seems to be down at the mo so dunno about them, but the agent is McMorran And Gatehouse Architects, (http://www.mcmorranandgatehouse.com/) - the same people involved in the Part Worn Res site development. Co-incidence? Probably, but there you go.
Aha: A little more googling finds TBAC Ltd registered at 1 Lordship Lane, the same address as The Black Ant Co (for which I now see it is the initials...) involved in (or at least the last registered owners of) the Part Worn Res development (thisun: http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=82065), so I'd guess it's not a co-incidence. The Black Ant is taking over CHL.
I'd guess they're taking quite a risk on Coldharbour lane - it's fairly obvious that lots of people want to live on the (relatively) quiet streets off it like Rushcroft road - but the Part Worn Res site has 49 flats - which in itself is probably about the same as the number of Coldharbour lane flats this side of Loughborogh junction that have come up in 3 or 4 years... they'll be in severe danger of flooding the local market. If the housing market goes really badly they might end up renting to HB recipients anyway - like the Docklands in the early 90s!
Too fucking right they areprunus said:
. Also registered at 1 Lordship Lane is Antic Ltd, owner of the Queen (which I hear they want to pull down and turn into -- you guessed it) and sub-lessee of the Dogstar. 1 Lordship lane is the East Dulwich Tavern, of course.
It was also Antic who tried to build the gated community up Tulse Hill but were refused permisson for gates, mostly thanks to Justin.
I seem to recall they have another chinese-wall company name as well but I can't remember and can't get AK on the blower.
Fucking hell. They are on a mission. We must watch closely that they don't use their mutiple names to get round the 14-unit rule.
Is TBAC a separate co from The Black Ant Company or just an abbreviation?
Can somebody do a company search and find out just how many more companies are registered at that address?
Can somebody do a company search and find out just how many more companies are registered at that address?
prunus
Tick tock.
IntoStella said:
Weeelllll.....
TBAC Ltd is a company in its own right, but not at Lordship Lane (it's registered to somewhere in Uxbridge). It used to be The British Aluminium Company, so I *suspect* that The Black Ant are just using the initials on applications for convenience (or they could be deliberate obfuscation) - they've made applications as 'TBAC Limited' to Lewisham council as well. However you can use pretty much anything as a registered address, so it doesn't prove anything for certain.
The Black Ant Co. Ltd itself was called Readydogma until 1997.
There appears also at 1 Lordship Lane to be a company called Whizissue Ltd doing a development in Lewisham with, guess who, McMorran and Gatehouse. So there's another one I'd guess.
That's all I can find for now.
found another one: Billsop Properties Ltd. - interestingly, Billsop Properties Ltd is registered to 10 charterhouse square EC1M, but using 1 lordship lane as its address in a planning application to Lewisham council (associated name is Mr A. Thomas if that means anything to anyone).
McMorran and Gatehouse have at some point at least used (edit
131 Railton road as an address (in an application to Corporation of London).that really is all for now, I'm off to get beer.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
lang rabbie said:They were the applicant at 411-417 Coldharbour Lane London SW9 8LQ
See page 107 of Planning Applications Committee Reports- 10 February 2004 (4.9Mb pdf document so slow to download on dial-up connection)
The application was deferred for the odd reason
AFAIK it has never come back to the committee
I checked my notes.Milegate Ltd put in 2 retrospective applications for the infamous "Visits"/"Pedro Keys" bar/restaurent.The application for a "hotel" had been agreed."Visits" was extended into the ground floor of the "hotel" without planning permission.The retrospective application was for a change of use from a "hotel" use on the ground floor to A3(entertainment) with the shop becoming a bar as well.Thus a large bar space for up to 60 people.
Visits had been closed down by the police for the understandable reason that it was causing to much trouble on the street.The retrospective application included a note saying that the applicant would make sure that the premises would be run in a "proper and orderly manner".I assume the planners were trying to get assurances that it would be run properly.Also the "hotel" would not in reality have stayed if this application had been accepted.
"Pedro Keys" along with Nyams were raided and closed by the police permanently.
My conclusion is therefore that the same people behind Visits/Pedro Keys are behind the application that started this thread.So anyone considering putting in written objections bear in mind that they can be seen by the applicant.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
PacificOcean said:What I have never understood about these luxury developments in places like Coldharbour lane is who the hell buys them? It's bad enough having to live here when you don't have a choice but to pay £250,000 for the honour?
A lot of new developments are sold as investments-buy to let in central London
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
Must say I agree with Bob on the "gated" development.If one objected tothis at planning all the applicant has to say is that many other places are "Gated".Clifton Mansions also the Barrier Block is know gated.Unless its an estate of buildings enclosed by a wall and gate(as one gets in the USA) or a development closing off a public right of way I dont see how that argument could hold up at Planning Committee.
It will lead to loss of retail space,there are design considerations-as LR/HB have shown.Fuzzy has made some points that can be taken up.Are the flats in line with what is required in the borough?Trouble with this argument is that some of us are also arguing for more social housing for single people at the same time.There is the issue of the car parking space-whether it is neccessary as car use is to be discouraged in central London.
Given whose involved in this application it could be they are trying to get it to increase the value of the site to sell.
Im also as Fuzzy has pointed out not against flats above shops in CHL.When Larrys Bike shop plans were being opposed one of the issues was that CHL could become a dead zone of late night bars.More flats may improve CHL.Im not against the new Bike shop plans in principle for example.
The issue of capitalist property developers building overpriced flats in central Brixton is not entirely going to be dealt with by opposing planning applications.Except for the amount of units involved and whether they should be more "affordable units" included.
If thats what people think they should put it in their comments on the proposal.At least then the Councillors will know its an issue even if its not covered by the UDP.
A lot of this is down to IMO that these private developments could lead to the Council thinking about flogging off Rushcroft RD/Clifton Mansions/Somerlyton Rd to developers.If that happens then a concerted effort should be made to defend these as social housing areas.
Somerleyton Rd,according to the minutes of the last BAC,may be classified for housing-this would increase the value of the land considerably.Making it worth selling.
Another issue is that the Guiness estate is to be redeveloped -leading to a loss of affordable housing.As Guiness have to subsidise the redevelopment by some sales.
Their is an issue of a gradual lowering of social housing in central Brixton.
Oh and just because Ive said all this does not mean I support Capitalism as I dont.I just think one has to be clear.I loath property developers but the revolution has not happened yet.These people wont be stuck in front of a firing squad just yet.
It will lead to loss of retail space,there are design considerations-as LR/HB have shown.Fuzzy has made some points that can be taken up.Are the flats in line with what is required in the borough?Trouble with this argument is that some of us are also arguing for more social housing for single people at the same time.There is the issue of the car parking space-whether it is neccessary as car use is to be discouraged in central London.
Given whose involved in this application it could be they are trying to get it to increase the value of the site to sell.
Im also as Fuzzy has pointed out not against flats above shops in CHL.When Larrys Bike shop plans were being opposed one of the issues was that CHL could become a dead zone of late night bars.More flats may improve CHL.Im not against the new Bike shop plans in principle for example.
The issue of capitalist property developers building overpriced flats in central Brixton is not entirely going to be dealt with by opposing planning applications.Except for the amount of units involved and whether they should be more "affordable units" included.
If thats what people think they should put it in their comments on the proposal.At least then the Councillors will know its an issue even if its not covered by the UDP.
A lot of this is down to IMO that these private developments could lead to the Council thinking about flogging off Rushcroft RD/Clifton Mansions/Somerlyton Rd to developers.If that happens then a concerted effort should be made to defend these as social housing areas.
Somerleyton Rd,according to the minutes of the last BAC,may be classified for housing-this would increase the value of the land considerably.Making it worth selling.
Another issue is that the Guiness estate is to be redeveloped -leading to a loss of affordable housing.As Guiness have to subsidise the redevelopment by some sales.
Their is an issue of a gradual lowering of social housing in central Brixton.
Oh and just because Ive said all this does not mean I support Capitalism as I dont.I just think one has to be clear.I loath property developers but the revolution has not happened yet.These people wont be stuck in front of a firing squad just yet.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
I looked at the architects drawings for both schemes(they are at the Tate library).Here are comments.First the scheme for 419-423 CHL.This is to replace the 3 shops in between Clifton Mansions and the "Hotel".Architect Bryan Wells Associates.
Their will be 9 one bed flats,4 two bed and 1 three bed.Their will be 2 retail units (A1) with a loss of 279 sq m retail space.The space around the back has 3 existing car parking spaces.This will be increased to 7 ,1 disability space and 6 cycle racks.Their will be space for a delivery vehicle.This means that deliveries to the shop and refuse collection can be done from the rear-meaning CHL wont be obstructed.
The main entrance to the flats is on CHL.Therefore IMO this development is not a "Gated development".
The 2nd and 3rd rear floors have balconies that may overlook the flats in Rushcroft Rd.
The front of the building is built from a steel clad frame stone cladded.The colours not decided yet.The building is "modernist"-it has a large amount of glass filling in the steel frame.The floors dont line up with Clifton mansions.The is a central pillar that sticks up with a clock on the top.
The design is radically different from the Victorian buildings next to it.This may be controversial to some.
Their will be 9 one bed flats,4 two bed and 1 three bed.Their will be 2 retail units (A1) with a loss of 279 sq m retail space.The space around the back has 3 existing car parking spaces.This will be increased to 7 ,1 disability space and 6 cycle racks.Their will be space for a delivery vehicle.This means that deliveries to the shop and refuse collection can be done from the rear-meaning CHL wont be obstructed.
The main entrance to the flats is on CHL.Therefore IMO this development is not a "Gated development".
The 2nd and 3rd rear floors have balconies that may overlook the flats in Rushcroft Rd.
The front of the building is built from a steel clad frame stone cladded.The colours not decided yet.The building is "modernist"-it has a large amount of glass filling in the steel frame.The floors dont line up with Clifton mansions.The is a central pillar that sticks up with a clock on the top.
The design is radically different from the Victorian buildings next to it.This may be controversial to some.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
The design for the old bike shop 435-437 CHL is by McMorran & Gatehouse Architects.
Their design is also for flats and retail(A1).Their will be no loss of retail space.Sorry I did not note number of flats.Their may be an issue of balconies on the rear overlooking Rushcroft Rd.
The design for the front retains the original facade with an extra floor on top making the building the same height as Clifton Mansions with a flat roof.
The Architects have done a scheme which blends into the existing street frontage whilst totally refurbishing the building.The flats from what I remember from the drawings looked good.
It looks like their will be two shop units at ground level.
Their design is also for flats and retail(A1).Their will be no loss of retail space.Sorry I did not note number of flats.Their may be an issue of balconies on the rear overlooking Rushcroft Rd.
The design for the front retains the original facade with an extra floor on top making the building the same height as Clifton Mansions with a flat roof.
The Architects have done a scheme which blends into the existing street frontage whilst totally refurbishing the building.The flats from what I remember from the drawings looked good.
It looks like their will be two shop units at ground level.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
Given that those of us who opposed the original plans for the bike shop(Larrys 3 floor bar) were using as one of the argumants that the retail sector was being pushed out by late night bars Im not minded to oppose the bike shop scheme(435-437CHL).Im not sure about the one for 419-423 CHl-the design and involvement of Milegate Ltd.
I dont agree that 419-423 CHL is a "Gated scheme".I think that those of us who opposed Larrys scheme have won the argument.Developers are putting forward schemes for a retail/residential mix.Seems to me that planners and developers have got the meesage on appropriate developments for CHL.Which is partly IMO done to the bike shop campaign.
I know these are private flats that may be out of the price range of any local people.Thats another issue.In fact having two new private developments in CHL may make it easier to argue that Clifton Mansion/Rushcroft Rd be kept as some form of social housing.
One of my local Councillors told me they thought that their was to much social housing in Brixton.These developments show that this is not necessarily so.
Out of the two schemes I think the one for the old bike shop is best.Im not sure about the other "modernist" one .Its difficult to tell from black and white drawings what it will be like.Also the 419-423 scheme is just below the limit for a proportion of "affordable housing" element to the scheme.
I dont agree that 419-423 CHL is a "Gated scheme".I think that those of us who opposed Larrys scheme have won the argument.Developers are putting forward schemes for a retail/residential mix.Seems to me that planners and developers have got the meesage on appropriate developments for CHL.Which is partly IMO done to the bike shop campaign.
I know these are private flats that may be out of the price range of any local people.Thats another issue.In fact having two new private developments in CHL may make it easier to argue that Clifton Mansion/Rushcroft Rd be kept as some form of social housing.
One of my local Councillors told me they thought that their was to much social housing in Brixton.These developments show that this is not necessarily so.
Out of the two schemes I think the one for the old bike shop is best.Im not sure about the other "modernist" one .Its difficult to tell from black and white drawings what it will be like.Also the 419-423 scheme is just below the limit for a proportion of "affordable housing" element to the scheme.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
lang rabbie said:
Both schemes have filled in the forms to say that the retail units will be A1.Im not clear whether this has to be kept to once they are built.Do you know Fuzzy?
The infill scheme is definitely not in keeping with the Temperance hall.The ground floor Edwardian ground floor shop surrounds will go to be replaced by "modernist" glass and steel.
The Brixton cycles scheme is IMO a good one.I liked the layouts of the flats as well on the top floor.Not that Ill get one
If you want to comment on the 419-423 scheme the planning officer is Mr Andrew Mulindwa-Town planning ,10 Acre Lane SW2 5LL
Fuzzy
Hearts Cov
Gramsci said:
A1 is shop use i.e. not selling food or a pub/club. if its classed as A1 and they want to try using the premises for selling food or pub/club they will have to apply for planning permission to get the change of use. its not a back way in of getting a pub or a club there as the change of use from A1 to A3 is normally protected by retail policies such as those that stopped the loss of the bike shop.
"I wouldn't be averse to an infill scheme at 419-423, but it needs to be
sensitive to the former temperance billiard hall, and preferably keep and refurbish the Edwardian ground floor shop surrounds which are a continuation of the temperance hall block."
These three single storey shops really aren't worth saving. Go and look at that mosaic thing and the tiles, nothing special and the shopfronts themselves are long gone. I'd like good quality build here too but the shed those shops are in isn't anything special.
sensitive to the former temperance billiard hall, and preferably keep and refurbish the Edwardian ground floor shop surrounds which are a continuation of the temperance hall block."
These three single storey shops really aren't worth saving. Go and look at that mosaic thing and the tiles, nothing special and the shopfronts themselves are long gone. I'd like good quality build here too but the shed those shops are in isn't anything special.
"The design is radically different from the Victorian buildings next to it.This may be controversial to some."
I like buildings in most styles, but I want the best of each style. I don't want half-measures - unuseable balconies, weak detailing, pretentious but poorly referenced period-style features.
I like buildings in most styles, but I want the best of each style. I don't want half-measures - unuseable balconies, weak detailing, pretentious but poorly referenced period-style features.
Similar threads
