Hondo's plans for a huge tower on Pope's Road, Brixton and the Brixton Project

[DJWrongspeed]

It's important to object I agree, it's just in the wrong place for Brixton that's for sure, but you do wonder with an enormo recession on the horizon whether any of this will get built anyway?

 

[Gramsci]

It's important to object I agree, it's just in the wrong place for Brixton that's for sure, but you do wonder with an enormo recession on the horizon whether any of this will get built anyway?

Good point.

Read most officers report. Officers argue that the negative effect of the tower on local heritage is offest by its economic and social benefits.

One of which is large amount of office space.

The report goes to great lengths to say that there is a lack of local office space. That unlike other parts of central London this has not increased.

This argument no longer holds.

Whole sections on inner London office space are now empty.

Been told this will go into the next year.

PWC have a large office by Charing Cross Station. They have told their staff to wfm indefinitely now.

The pandemic is changing how people work.

So the studies that officers are using are now out of date.

Officer in the report is ambiguous about calling it office space.

They now say the proposed development is in the new Creative Entreprise Zone. ( What officers call creative and digital industries) .

And are still explorig with applicant "maker" spaces. Not quite sure what that means in the case of this design which is office space not industrial.

So could still argue that its relevant.

As Council now want Brixton to be a CEZ.

 

[Gramsci]

Reading the very depressing officers report another thing comes up.

The much vaunted "permeability" that this proposal offers is not what it seems.

Applicant has apparently got a railway arch free to put in north south pedestrian access. But its not clear to me that this definite.

Officer says long term "permeability" will be long term. As the railway arches in the north of the site are occupied.

That would be the DIY shop / second hand shop.

So more scope for gentrification in the future.

Officer urges applicant to work with NR/ Archco for long term solution.

Permeability east / west is not possible as the applicant is going to use Valentia entrance for delivery entrance. So been advised that east west pedestrian access is not allowed for safety reasons ( delivey vehicles and pedestrians to near.)

This wiill mean in practise that the ground floor area of shops is a dead end. It wont be open and permeable. It will be an enclosed space.

Get out for this is long term solutions to be thought of.

 

[Gramsci]

Having read most of the officers report Im now really pissed off.

Officer has whole section about planning and heritage.

The tower does cause "harm". Officer has decided its "less than substantial".

Under Planning Regulations the planning authority can make a decision to over ride effect on heritage. My reading is that the local planning authority must make a presumption to safeguard heritage under case law and national guidance.

This is why the officer makes such a big thing of the social/ economic and community benefits of the scheme ( in planning dept and Regeneration dept view)

Its why the applicant came forward at later stage to offer more for the community side of it.

Under a section 106 agreement a long term plan will be developed in consultation with the local community for community use.

The Regeneration dept of the Council have had a hand in this.

They are included in the report as supporting the proposed development.

So to repeat throughout the officers report the planning dept acknowledge this proposal goes against the Local Plan and harms local heritage.

IMO the Planning Department and Regeneration department have not been working to represent the interests of the community.

The Local Plan/ Brixton SPD ( which grew out of Brixton Masterplan) were made including consultation with the local community.

This is a major test of these guidelines for development in Brixton and officers have sided with developer.

This is not acceptable.

 

[Gramsci]

Another thing. These officers reports come out a week before the Planning Committee.

Officers in Regeneration and Planning have spent months talking to Hondo about this.

All the public gets is a week to read report. Then a few people get a couple of minutes at Planning committee.

The whole system works in practise in favour of big developers.

In this borough.

 

[Gramsci]

Did I miss something?

The officers report. Section on Tall buildings and design excellance. All the more important as this is right next to Brixton Conservation Area.

8.2.125 In relation to Policy Q26, part (iii) the proposal does not achieve a design excellence in terms of its
form – it is too tall and dominant, silhouette – (it is blocky and dominant) or detailing – (the diagrid
at high level draws undue attention to the building).

Leaves me speechless. And officers are recommding approval.

Yet the conclusion to report ( section 9.. Which is what most people will jump to as summary) states:

9.9 The height of the development in this highly publically accessible location is considered to be
acceptable. The proposed building on the site has been sensitively designed, taking its cue from
the surrounding and historic context of the site, and would respect the character, context and the
form and scale of neighbouring buildings and would sit comfortably within the streetscene and
surrounding area. The appearance and detailed façade treatment of the development is considered
to be high quality, displaying an appropriate response to the surrounding character and the
proposal would result in ‘less than substantial harm’ to the setting of nearby listed buildings, conservation area and protected views

 

[Gramsci]

Have the supposed benefits been clearly described within the report? It's all very well saying that there will be benefits, but if they were real they would be listed.

Ive read most of the report now. Here is the list from the report.

9.7 However, as the proposal represents a departure from adopted local plan policy and has been
identified as causing ‘less than substantial’ harm it is important to identify the public benefits that
would outweigh these in line with paragraph 196 of the NPPF. These benefits are considered to be:
Be
 New and Diverse Employment Opportunities – the creation of a new office floorspace
ecosystem providing flexible office and workspace accommodation, including medium, small
and micro workspaces well suited to small creative and cultural businesses and start-ups;

 Jobs – the creation of approximately 1,600 on-site jobs across a range of sectors and
additional jobs during construction and from associated resident and occupier expenditures;
local employment and training initiatives; and the provision of 10% affordable workspace
(2,544sqm) within the development;

 Community – the provision of dedicated community floorspace within the development and the
use of the publicly accessible central space within the market by the community to host events.

 Transport – investment in local public transport infrastructure, including contributions towards
improving Brixton Rail Station; providing additional bus services in the area; improving cycle
parking in the town centre; improvements to signage and walking/cycling routes along Atlantic
Road & Brixton Station Road; and a commitment to 50% freight consolidation to reduce
servicing trips to and from the site;

 Public Realm – the delivery of a new public square on Pope’s Road to support a range of uses
and to create a multi-functional, inclusive, useable public space; and

 Public facilities – the provision of new and expanded public toilets within the development to
replace the existing date block in Popes road.

 

[Gramsci]

Another bit of the officers report says this:

8.2.116 However, whilst it is often the case that considered detailing can lessen perceived bulk and play
down the appearance of mass, as stated above it is often the sheer scale of the proposal (its
oppressive bulk, scale and mass) that is problematic. For example, whilst the brick frame carrying
relatively square windows is an attractive concept which responds well to the local context, when it
is stretched over such large elevations it does not help to mitigate against the dominant mass of
the building. This comes across particularly in the view from Atlantic Road at the Vining Street
junction (View 23). It should be noted that Historic England also considers the façade to be too
industrial in character due to the ‘repetitious windows and squat proportions’.

So officers report says the size of the building is the problem. It does not matter how much surface appearance is altered.

 

[Gramsci]

Here are the national planning guidelines discussed in the officers report.

8.2.42 There is therefore a “strong presumption” against granting planning permission for development
which would harm a heritage asset. In the Forge Field case the High Court explained that the
presumption is a statutory one. It is not irrefutable. It can be outweighed by material considerations
powerful enough to do so. But a local planning authority can only properly strike the balance
between harm to a heritage asset on the one hand and planning benefits on the other if it is
conscious of the statutory presumption in favour of preservation and if it demonstrably applies that
presumption to the proposal it is considering.

8.2.43 The case-law also establishes that even where the harm identified is less than substantial (i.e. falls
within paragraph 196 of the NPPF), that harm must still be given considerable importance and
weight.

IMO the officers have not proved the balance is in favour of the development.

The presumption against granting planning permission is not set aside because officer says the harm is less then substantial. Which is part of officer argument in report. The case law is cllear. Harm is harm.

 

[Rushy]

The MP Helen Hayes brought up issue of permitted development.

Under present planning rules if developer can't rent the office space they could change it to housing. Without need of affordable.

Officer concedes the point and says it will be written into application that it has to stay as office space.

Are you sure? I though office to C3 PD right only applied to offices in use before March 2013?

 

[Gramsci]

Are you sure? I though office to C3 PD right only applied to offices in use before March 2013?

Its what she says ( 6.4.7 of report. ). I dont know if this is accurate.

There is no evidence to suggest that there will be demand for 21 storeys of workspace in
central Brixton, at the level of rent required to support a new tall building, in the foreseeable
future. These issues would be solely a matter of risk for the applicant, were it not for the current
government's policy relating to the expansion of permitted development rights. I raise this
issue, as I worked extensively on it during the last Parliament as a member of the Housing,
Communities and Local Government Select Committee. Under current planning policy, a
building owner can convert an office or industrial building into a residential building without the
need for a planning application. Such buildings are exempt from requirements for affordable
housing or section 106 contributions to community infrastructure such as school places, parks
and green spaces or medical facilities.

Officer replies in report:

6.4.8 Officer comment: the demand for office accommodation within Brixton and the height and design
quality of the development has been fully considered as set out in the ‘Assessment’ section of this
report. An appropriate condition is suggested that will restrict the office accommodation from
switching to residential use under permitted development.

 

[Gramsci]

I think the planning department could have turnned down the application.

If applicant had put in for 10 to 14 floors approx depending on height of ceiling then I think officers may have needed to say yes.

They should have stood up to the developer on the excessive mass and height of the proposal.

The report has all over it officers deciding what is best for Brixton. Being to close to Hondo.

 

[Rushy]

Its what she says ( 6.4.7 of report. ). I dont know if this is accurate.




Officer replies in report:

In September Class B1 (office) will become class E - commercial, business and service. The idea is that you can change between class E uses without planning permission. That does not include C3 resi. The B1 change to resi will still be available until next year under the old rules - but only for offices in use on/by March 2013.

Maybe they are trying to anticipate future changes to the planning rules?
Although I am not that familiar with the new rules so it is entirely possible that I have no idea what I am talking about.

 

[wurlycurly]

We're all in it together.

Revealed: London councils take funds from developers to pay for planning guidelines

Critics say ‘poachers have become gamekeepers’ as a result, but councils deny conflict of interest

www.theguardian.com

 

[Gramsci]

Sent this to my Coldharbour Ward Cllrs:



Dear Ward Cllrs,

Im writing to complain about the way the planning and regeneration officers have dealt with the Hondo planning application.

Ive read most of the officer report for Planning Committee that is coming up this week.

The planning officers report for the Hondo planning application committee has whole section about planning and heritage in the report

The tower does cause "harm". The application is a , in officers words, a departure from agreed planning policy for the area.

Under Planning Regulations the planning authority can make a decision to over ride effect on heritage. My reading is that the local planning authority must make a presumption to safeguard heritage under case law and national guidance.

This is why the officer makes such a big thing of the social/ economic and community benefits of the scheme ( in planning dept and Regeneration dept view). They say damage to heritage can be set aside if the benefits of a scheme outweigh it. I don't think they have proved that in the report. Nor should they be taking what is in effect a political decision on what is best for Brixton. They should stick to what has been agreed locally.

The same with the Regeneration department. In the report they say they support the scheme. They should have stayed out of it and remained neutral on a contentious planning application like this.

The Local Plan/ Brixton SPD ( which grew out of Brixton Masterplan) were made including consultation with the local community. I took part in the Brixton Masterplan and Brixton SPD consultation through Future Brixton.

Future Brixton was set up to give local community a say in the future development of Brixton.

This is a major test of these guidelines for development in Brixton and officers have sided with developer.

What is the point of local people taking part in consultations on the development of Brixton when officers don't back up planning policies that are agreed?

The planning department could have told Hondo the tower was to high and lower it to acceptable height in line with local planning policy to reduce effect on local heritage.

Reading the report and its clear the Planning and Regeneration departments have been working closely with the developer to produce a scheme. Despite both knowing its a "departure" from the Local Plan. They have ignored Historic England., The Brixton Society and local people. Some of whom put in valid obections about the height and mass of the tower. Which officers accept as valid.

Officers should be working to support the local community not working to support a developer's planning application.

Given officers recommend approval its going to be very difficult for planning committee to reject it.

 

[VivLewis]

Very good summaries of the issues here from local MP Helen Hayes and from the Brixton Society (have to confess I helped with the drafting). Helen Hayes and Alan Piper (Brixton Society's secretary) have both applied to speak at at Planning Applications committee tomorrow night and had to provide the text of their statements to Lambeth's Democratic Services. I think Emma Nye one of the local Coldharbour ward councillors is also planning to speak.

 

[Gramsci]

Very good summaries of the issues here from local MP Helen Hayes and from the Brixton Society (have to confess I helped with the drafting). Helen Hayes and Alan Piper (Brixton Society's secretary) have both applied to speak at at Planning Applications committee tomorrow night and had to provide the text of their statements to Lambeth's Democratic Services. I think Emma Nye one of the local Coldharbour ward councillors is also planning to speak.

That's a new thing- sending text to democratic services. I can't see why that is needed. Its extra work for objectors.

 

[CH1]

That's a new thing- sending text to democratic services. I can't see why that is needed. Its extra work for objectors.

And less for the committee clerk(s) who now cut and paste into their minutes. But at least they have less excuse for mishearing their dictaphones!

 

[editor]

Buzzed: Brixton MP Helen Hayes urges Lambeth Planning to reject the proposed Hondo Enormo-Tower

 

[cuppa tee]

putting aside the impact of the finished tower I am wondering about the fuckeries caused by the construction work.
I’m no expert but it looks to me like a very tight space to be building such an edifice
given that materials will be needed to be shipped in and out of such a tight space where the roads already struggle
i can see this project making a large chunk of town inaccessible for no small period of time which will have a knock on effect on surroundings, noise, pollution etc , just thinking aloud because these projects don’t build themselves by magic overnight I read this morning that the street market around the elephant shopping centre is going to close soon for the regeneration project there with calamitous results for the market traders and their customers.

 

[scmw]

I was speaking with one of the councillors who provided a list of material reasons why a development can be legally rejected. If this gets approved tomorrow then it will be an embarrassment for the council.

 

[editor]

Nobody wants this fucking pointless fugly tower apart from the millionaire DJ twat and his NY investment company backers and, it seems, Lambeth.
Oh, and The Brixton Project because they'll be quids in.

 

[Gramsci]

I did get reply from local Cllr. They will speak against. But cant comment on my view of how officers in planning and regeneration have dealt with this application.

Yes there are material reasons why this application can be rejected. Even the Planning dept says this is a Departure application. They state the reasons themselves. Its not that complicated.

Its that officers in Regeneration and Planning have made it more difficult for Cllrs on Planning committee to reject the proposal. By working with the applicant on it.

If it gets agreed tomorrow the question would be why is it an embarassment to the Council.

If Cllrs cant comment then the system must be working fine. Whatever happens tomorrow will be done to the system working perfectly.

Which it obviously is not

This is not about individuals its about how the Council operates.

My experience is Cllrs are loathe to criticise the Council bureacracy. I find that really frustrating.

The application should never have been allowed to progress forward. Planning should have rejected it.

 

[Gramsci]

Seeing the Hero of Switzerland application at committee imo the Cllrs on it are of variable quality.

Some are on top of it and ask questions others did not appear to me to have read up enough to ask questions.

 

[scmw]

Its that officers in Regeneration and Planning have made it more difficult for Cllrs on Planning committee to reject the proposal. By working with the applicant on it.

I don’t necessarily have a problem with this because I appreciate the developers should work with the council to ensure the application is of high quality. If this is the best they can come up with though then the councillors have ample reason to reject.

 

[editor]

How can anyone think this is great design? It's like a failed shopping mall from the 70s,

 

[Gramsci]

I don’t necessarily have a problem with this because I appreciate the developers should work with the council to ensure the application is of high quality. If this is the best they can come up with though then the councillors have ample reason to reject.

But as you say there are material objections to this application. Height and mass. Even officers say its a "Departure application" In all my years of dealing in planning issues its first I have heard of departure application.

Officers could have refused the application.

They didn't.

BTW in the Council report officers wanted changes to the lower level exterior design and the struts as ground level. The applicant didn't offer any changes.As applicant has not been falling over itself to ensure design acceptable to the Council. As I pointed out in some parts of the report officers say there are significant design issue at other the say its ok. The report is very poor.

Given what I saw at recent Hero of Switzerland application what will happen tomorrow is that the senior planning officer will turn up to berate Cllrs on the PAC. Senior planning officers will turn up with power point presentation of the scheme, all the social / economic benefits. The officers will tr to sell the scheme on basis of its benefits. Cllrs will be told this is the best they could make of a poor job. That if rejected would go to appeal and the Council might end up with worse scheme. That the scheme is in line , due to the efforts of officers,, to make real Council desire to help people in a Council Ward with level of deprivation of Coldharbour. Jobs/ affordable workspace and community space. This will all be writtten up in a Section 106. People against scheme are not being realistic. It delivers on new public square and toilets etc. They will go on like that for ages.

Objectors will get two minutes each.

In short the Planning department are not a disinterested party here.

The problem is the Regen and Planning at top levels have their idea of how Brixton development should be progressed.

Planning is not a straighforward follow the rules laid out by Council system.

As the senior officer said at Hero application officers should not take mechanical approach to the planning documents like Local Plan. They make a judgement call

This is where what appears on surface a relatively fair system is subject to what is in actual fact political questions.

Officers get way to close to developers and forget who they are supposed to be working for.

Its very very frustrating to deal with. Off the record some Cllrs will criticise what goes on in Council bureaucracy. On record they won't.

Council attempts to involve residents ( Brixton Masterplan/ Brixton SPD etc) are of no avail if senior officers undermine them.

Id sack some of them.

 

[Gramsci]

Venue: Microsoft Teams (please copy and paste the following link into your browser): Join conversation

This is the link to attend the meeting today.

I have Android Tablet and downloaded the Microsoft Teams App.

Looks like it will work.

 

[Gramsci]

At the meeting now.

 

[Gramsci]

Going to be break at nine pm. Only Hondo application is on the agenda. Going to be long meeting.