True, I went and had a proper look at them the other night and they are fucked. There is none of the lovely faience tiling seen round the corner on the hotel.hatboy said:
Coldharbour Lane redevelopment
- Thread starter Mr. Lee
- Start date
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
Their was something IS posted that Pooka had talked to one of the planners re affordable provision.Ive checked the Draft UDP and it says that on developments on 10 units or over an affordable alement is required.The adopted UDP does it on how big the site is in hectares(whatever they are 
).So the plans for 419-423 CHL could be contested on this.Though the draft UDP does not carry so much weight.The hectorage ill have to check
Ill put up the correct details later.
Still its worth querying this as a comment on the plans.
).So the plans for 419-423 CHL could be contested on this.Though the draft UDP does not carry so much weight.The hectorage ill have to checkIll put up the correct details later.
Still its worth querying this as a comment on the plans.
Fuzzy
Hearts Cov
i think from what i've seen posted here is that the UDP is nearly at the revised deposit stage which means it holds a reasonable amount of weight.
the whole planning process is a state of flux at the moment what with the passage of the planning and compulsory purchase being passed back in may. UDPs will be a thing of the past in a couple of years. dont ask. i'm still getting my head round waht the new system will be and i have to deal with it every day.
the whole planning process is a state of flux at the moment what with the passage of the planning and compulsory purchase being passed back in may. UDPs will be a thing of the past in a couple of years. dont ask. i'm still getting my head round waht the new system will be and i have to deal with it every day.
Cheers gramsci.Gramsci said:Their was something IS posted that Pooka had talked to one of the planners re affordable provision.Ive checked the Draft UDP and it says that on developments on 10 units or over an affordable alement is required.The adopted UDP does it on how big the site is in hectares(whatever they are
Ill put up the correct details later.
Still its worth querying this as a comment on the plans.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
Looked at the Revised Deposit UDP(June 2004)-which is online-and the relevant bits are:
"Policy 15 (c) On developments capable of 10+ units or on sites 0.1 Ha+ irrespective of the number of units,a mix of dwelling type,affordability and size of unit will be required,having regard to local circumstances and site characteristics,to meet the changing composition of households in the light of assessed housing need." page 64
The "adopted" UDP (now out of date-but Im not sure how much more weight it gets.As Fuzzy says-correctly-the new one is almost completed)says:
Policy H7 Affordable Housing
"For developments of new housing on larger sites(normally over 0.3 ha,gross area) the Council will regard provisionof affordable housing as a material consideration.It will seek to negotiate a rasonable proportion of affordable housing through a legally binding agreement with the developer or enforced by way of planning conditions as appropriate".
Didnt check the hectares of these sites so not sure on this.However IMO its definitely worth querying the fact that 419-423 has 15 units with no "affordable" ones.Cleverly the plans for the old bike shop are for 9 units.I wonder if the architects decided that so their would be no reason to hold up their application?
"Policy 15 (c) On developments capable of 10+ units or on sites 0.1 Ha+ irrespective of the number of units,a mix of dwelling type,affordability and size of unit will be required,having regard to local circumstances and site characteristics,to meet the changing composition of households in the light of assessed housing need." page 64
The "adopted" UDP (now out of date-but Im not sure how much more weight it gets.As Fuzzy says-correctly-the new one is almost completed)says:
Policy H7 Affordable Housing
"For developments of new housing on larger sites(normally over 0.3 ha,gross area) the Council will regard provisionof affordable housing as a material consideration.It will seek to negotiate a rasonable proportion of affordable housing through a legally binding agreement with the developer or enforced by way of planning conditions as appropriate".
Didnt check the hectares of these sites so not sure on this.However IMO its definitely worth querying the fact that 419-423 has 15 units with no "affordable" ones.Cleverly the plans for the old bike shop are for 9 units.I wonder if the architects decided that so their would be no reason to hold up their application?
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
The Deposit UDP also has Policy 32 Building Scale and Design(Pages 106-107).For infill developments like these 2 plans their are special considerations under Policy 32.
They should "respond to the context and sensitivity of the site and area,as follows:
In Townscapes of significant quality..new infill developments will normally be required to be a scholarly replica of the predominant pattern..In areas of varied townscape significant quality,including most conservation areas..new points of interst are encouraged.New development should be disciplined by the:
Building lines and scale of area
heights,massing,rhythm and roofscape of adjoining buildings
architectural characteristics,profiles and silhoutte of adjoining buildings
type, colour, material of adjoining buildings
form and detailing of existing buildings
The Deposit UDP goes on to say that modern design is acceptable.That a modern copy of adjacent buildings can look just as naff as a poor modern design.
The 2 designs for the street can be compared.The one for the old bike shop keeps strictly to the deposit UDP by retaining the facade of the building.
419-423 is completley new design.The architects could have-as Lang
Rabbie suggested-restored or rebuilt the shops to their original Edwardian design.This would have kept it in keeping with the adjacent buildings.I think their is an issue with whether the design for 419-423 does keep with the "rhythm" of the adjacent buildings.
They should "respond to the context and sensitivity of the site and area,as follows:
In Townscapes of significant quality..new infill developments will normally be required to be a scholarly replica of the predominant pattern..In areas of varied townscape significant quality,including most conservation areas..new points of interst are encouraged.New development should be disciplined by the:
Building lines and scale of area
heights,massing,rhythm and roofscape of adjoining buildings
architectural characteristics,profiles and silhoutte of adjoining buildings
type, colour, material of adjoining buildings
form and detailing of existing buildings
The Deposit UDP goes on to say that modern design is acceptable.That a modern copy of adjacent buildings can look just as naff as a poor modern design.
The 2 designs for the street can be compared.The one for the old bike shop keeps strictly to the deposit UDP by retaining the facade of the building.
419-423 is completley new design.The architects could have-as Lang
Rabbie suggested-restored or rebuilt the shops to their original Edwardian design.This would have kept it in keeping with the adjacent buildings.I think their is an issue with whether the design for 419-423 does keep with the "rhythm" of the adjacent buildings.
Dragged my flu ridden carcass up to the planning office to have a look at this today. It looks just like a 1970s office block -- with smoked glass, floor to ceiling picture windows -- and is massively imposing. It is also totally out of keeping with the adjacent Clifton Mansions and Temperance Hall, and not in an 'exciting', 'edgy' way. Just in an ugly, overpowering way.
It will overlook -- with floor to ceiling windows and balconies -- the rear of four to five blocks in Rushcroft Road on the CHL side. There is a separate lift motor room as well as two plant rooms so the latter are clearly for aircon. The lift tower extends far above the roofline of Clifton.
The building specs look to be as cheap and nasty as they can get away with.
As has been mentioned before, retail space is being sacrificed at the rear for car parking, and the architects' plans made me laugh aloud, for in the elevation showing the car parking they have drawn in what are clearly Mercs and Beamers.
It will overlook -- with floor to ceiling windows and balconies -- the rear of four to five blocks in Rushcroft Road on the CHL side. There is a separate lift motor room as well as two plant rooms so the latter are clearly for aircon. The lift tower extends far above the roofline of Clifton.
The building specs look to be as cheap and nasty as they can get away with.
As has been mentioned before, retail space is being sacrificed at the rear for car parking, and the architects' plans made me laugh aloud, for in the elevation showing the car parking they have drawn in what are clearly Mercs and Beamers.
I live at the back of this proposed development - midway between there and the Brixton Cycles one - and they would each be a disaster.
- Severe overlooking from windows and balconies. Over 100 years of privacy at the back of the Rushcroft Road flats destroyed.
- Coldharbour Lane retail space sacrificed for car parking.*
- A gated security estate on Coldharbour Lane ("security gates" at the back are clearly marked on the plans).
Also, I suspect neither block would be occupied by yuppies: they're nasty pokey little flats crammed into too little space on a busy, noisy, drug-infested street.
So what will happen?
The yuppies will (quite rightly) shun the flats so they'll be bought by property management companies who'll let them to people off the housing register who Lambeth Council want to keep out of bed and breakfast accommodation. The rent will be paid by housing benefit.
So this development will:
- destroy the privacy of several blocks on Rushcroft Road
- stick poor people - some of whom may be vulnerable, possibly with drug problems - in nasty little flats on a noisy street surrounded by drug dealers
- cost the state large sums of housing benefit money
- remove daytime retail space from Coldharbour Lane
- line the pockets of property developers and property management companies.
When you think about it these developments are, in reality, a type of council house privatisation scheme: The private sector builds the flats which are then occupied by poor people off the housing register with rent paid for by the state.
And it's certain the wretched occupants will be asked to sign useless 6 month assured shorthold tenancies as opposed to the powerful council tenancy agreement.
All so property developers can stuff their pockets! And I hear that the Brixton Cycles developer is the same company who bought the Queen in Ferndale Road and then applied to demolish it to build yuppie 'apartments.'
The same company rents the Dogstar off the Merrett clan.
*when there's a tube station, a mainline station and numerous bus routes a few yards away!
- Severe overlooking from windows and balconies. Over 100 years of privacy at the back of the Rushcroft Road flats destroyed.
- Coldharbour Lane retail space sacrificed for car parking.*
- A gated security estate on Coldharbour Lane ("security gates" at the back are clearly marked on the plans).
Also, I suspect neither block would be occupied by yuppies: they're nasty pokey little flats crammed into too little space on a busy, noisy, drug-infested street.
So what will happen?
The yuppies will (quite rightly) shun the flats so they'll be bought by property management companies who'll let them to people off the housing register who Lambeth Council want to keep out of bed and breakfast accommodation. The rent will be paid by housing benefit.
So this development will:
- destroy the privacy of several blocks on Rushcroft Road
- stick poor people - some of whom may be vulnerable, possibly with drug problems - in nasty little flats on a noisy street surrounded by drug dealers
- cost the state large sums of housing benefit money
- remove daytime retail space from Coldharbour Lane
- line the pockets of property developers and property management companies.
When you think about it these developments are, in reality, a type of council house privatisation scheme: The private sector builds the flats which are then occupied by poor people off the housing register with rent paid for by the state.
And it's certain the wretched occupants will be asked to sign useless 6 month assured shorthold tenancies as opposed to the powerful council tenancy agreement.
All so property developers can stuff their pockets! And I hear that the Brixton Cycles developer is the same company who bought the Queen in Ferndale Road and then applied to demolish it to build yuppie 'apartments.'
The same company rents the Dogstar off the Merrett clan.
*when there's a tube station, a mainline station and numerous bus routes a few yards away!
editor
hiraethified
I thought that there'd still be a pub on the ground floor with the upstairs converted into flats?OldSlapper said:
Of course, the real tragedy is that the majority of its customers were only there for the late night drinking (a much, much missed part of Brixton nightlife gone forever) and once that went a large part of the pub's income must have vanished.
The few times I went there in the daytime it was completely deserted and at 10pm the place was barely customer-troubled.
I guess cheap bars like the Beehive - with their aggressive buying power - must have tempted away poorer customers too.
Nah. The plan is for total demolition. Local Councillors are fighting it by trying to extend the central conservation area to include the pub.editor said:
When I go in the pub now I get the feeling they're deliberately trying to run it down - so they can claim it doesn't make a profit so needs to be demolished.
Agree with you about the Queen. It was a great boozer with an excellent landlord. Such a shame it's gone. What have we got now? Living Bar?
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
OldSlapper said:
How many more time have i got to point out this development cannot be defined as a "gated security estate" as the front entrance to the flats is on CHL.The back never was a right of way and will also be used for deliveries and rubbish collection for the shops and flats.
To go to planning committee and argue its "gated" would be counterproductive and make one look stupid.Also as I was one of those arguing against the bike shop being turned into a 3 storey nightclub I cant see how I can logically argue against 2 developments of flats and retail space.This land has never been Counci owned its not like trying to sell RR of to a private developer(which I would oppose).
The argument I have used is that this development is over the 10 units that he deposit UDP says should incorporate an "affordable" element,is a poor design and removes some retail space for car parking.
Also new flats in central Brixton may have a good effect on the street IMO.
The fact of the matter is that private developments often are bought up as investment properties for renting.Whether they are lived in by "yuppies" or not these plans arent IMO pushing out longstanding residents.
Fuzzy
Hearts Cov
whilst that is a good start it only proves that the council were probably going to recomend it for refusal. the applicant wanting to avoid getting it refused has withdrawn it and now has a year to negotiate further with the planners about what they would find acceptable before they can resubmit it for further consideration and determination. may be wise to speak to the case officer and find out the exact reasons the applicant withdrew it just so you can make sure that if the scheme is resubmitted you can point out to the planners whether you feel that the applicant has addressed the council's original concerns.
Would just like to point out that different people are complaining about these either being yuppie or non yuppie flats... 
Flats of any sort sound good to me - as long as they're done sensitively - all other things being equal more housing equals lower rents & house prices.
Flats of any sort sound good to me - as long as they're done sensitively - all other things being equal more housing equals lower rents & house prices.
(Here he comes again, spreading confusion before him)Bob said:
No they're not!! They're objecting to yuppie flats being done badly!! Do pay attention.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
Bob said:Would just like to point out that different people are complaining about these either being yuppie or non yuppie flats...
Flats of any sort sound good to me - as long as they're done sensitively - all other things being equal more housing equals lower rents & house prices.
I dont think necessarily more flats will lower prices.The only reason developers are building private flats in Brixton is that they think they will get a good return on their investment.
I was in Clerkenwell yesterday in Dallington St.Yet more "loft apartments" are being built.I dont believe the fact that more are being built will lower their price.
I see from here that the 9 yuppie flat development proposed for the old Bike Shop has been refused.
The developers are having real trouble with that shop. It's still on the market to rent for £82,000 per annum.
The developers are having real trouble with that shop. It's still on the market to rent for £82,000 per annum.
Streathamite
ideological dogmatist
but 'yuppie flats' - by 'in practice' definition - ain't sensitive to local needs, full stop.Bob said:Flats of any sort sound good to me - as long as they're done sensitively - all other things being equal more housing equals lower rents & house prices.
just_andrew
New Member
Why aren't yuppie flats sensitive to local needs? Trying to figure that one out.
Someone needs to read the file or phone up the planner. I will if no one else does. I've skimmed planning committee minutes and can't find the decision, suggesting a planner refused it under devolved authority.Gramsci said:
aurora green
Tectonic
editor said:
Could anyone miss it?
Is it going to be just flats, does anyone know?
iROBOT
CURRENTLY RE-BOOTING
Every time I go to visit friends in Brixton my heart sinks, the place isn’t what it used to be. I'm all for progress but it seems that the only people benefiting in all of this re-development are the (already) rich...
NB//Got stopped going into one of the bars there a few weeks ago because I was (in the bouncers words) "a lone male" had to get my friend to get me who was already inside, that's the sort of wank I expect from doorstaff in the West End not Brixton!
NB//Got stopped going into one of the bars there a few weeks ago because I was (in the bouncers words) "a lone male" had to get my friend to get me who was already inside, that's the sort of wank I expect from doorstaff in the West End not Brixton!
Similar threads
