Streatham_Mao
Active Member
She did withdraw it, complaining that she didn't know who I was. I'm someone in a public meeting, that's who. Don't want to be recorded, don't say anything.
And it's not even as if I knew everyone in the room already...
Ice Rink / Brixton Market decision day
- Thread starter netbob
- Start date
She did withdraw it, complaining that she didn't know who I was. I'm someone in a public meeting, that's who. Don't want to be recorded, don't say anything.
And it's not even as if I knew everyone in the room already...
lang rabbie
Je ne regrette les gazebos
There was more than one invoice for £500 with a Clapham Common bandstand letterhead in Keith Hill's expenses. What got my goat on Wednesday was Ling prefacing her remarks with something like "as a professional journalist..." when all of the "South Circular" newsletters she wrote/edited(?) for Hill at the taxpayer's expense were (IMO) poorly laid out and leadenly written (if grammatically correct).
Streatham_Mao
Active Member
Heh, you should see the standard of other students in my cohort.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
Once he was elected he changed his tune:
http://www.chuka.org.uk/2010/09/streatham-hub-popes-road-temporary-ice-provision/
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
from the other thread:
To summarise the three applications were passed.
The sole LibDem Cllr on the committee Cllr Palmer voted against all three applications- Porden Road car park , Ice rink at Popes road and variation to Section 106.
The Labour Cllr Edbrooke abstained on the vote to agree the Ice rink at Popes road and the Variation to Section 106.
The other three Labour Cllrs on the committee voted to agree all three applications with some extra conditiions.
The meeting was well attended by the public. Including Streatham skaters, Friends of Brixton Market, Brixton Society, Porden Road residents association , Brixton Market Traders Federation and Urbanites.
Several LibDem Cllrs from the Streatham area attended to oppose the application. Including Cllr Best ( who has done a lot ) and Cllr Clyne.
Labour Cllr Matt Parr who is Coldharbour Ward Cllr ( the ward the Market is in) attended and spoke to oppose the replacement of the Car park by the Ice rink because he was not convinced there was adequate replacement parking for the market.
There was at least one blogger there. See here:
http://www.streathampulse.com/2011/0...ission-passed/
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
I was at the meeting. Ive read Memespring good report. I did stay to end ( 1 am) . Here is my report from where Memespring left off.
To follow on where Memespring left off. Part 1
Tescos also made commitment that there would be no staff parking onsite, ( except for disabled staff). That the mge of the ice rink would have to find alternative parking for staff.
On the issue of Coach parking the officer didnt see what the problem was. There is no provision for Coach parking in application. This he sad was normal.Only set down and pick up. The officer said Coaches could go around and find somewhere else to park. In Somerleyton road or CHL.
The Chair asked about a Transport Assessment. The officer said this was not necessary as the site was already designated as a car park. I think he meant that Brixton gets a lot of traffic anyway. He said he didnt understand why people were getting worked up about a few extra coaches.
The Chair of Brixton Market Traders Federation (BMTF) interjected and said in that case Tescos car park in Acre Lane could be used for Ice Rink if parking was not considered an issue.
Cllr Sally Prentice (Cabinet Member for Regeneration, Planning, Employment and Enterprise) attended the meeting to support the application.
She gave brief history of Streatham Hub scheme. She said that issues of parking and community safety were being dealt with. ( barracking from floor) She said the rink would provide oppurtunities for young people. The Ice Rink in Brixton would bring in more people which would be good for Brixton. A survey by the Council of the night time economy had found that the majority of people who came to Brixton felt safe at night. There was no Plan B if this did not get passed.
( implying that if the committee did not agree these 3 linked applications it would be there fault if the Streatham Hub scheme folded. However at another point in the meeting Tescos were asked if they had ever thought of pulling out of the scheme. They said no. I found this curious. The Officers said that the changes to the scheme were necessary because of the recession. Tescos said it was to get the scheme finished more quickly. That they had problems due to a new sewer that was to be built under part of the site. Which was not in there control . Also that it meant they could work with TFL on a new bus turnaround. So the Tescos public reasons and the officers reason were different. This was never questioned)
Cllr Sally urged that comittee to agree the 3 applications with conditions. That this was potentially good for Brixton.
There was a barracking. And then she made her , now infamous comment,
if “existing businesses dont take advantage of new ( opportunities) then others will”
Barracking from floor chants of “Books and Cheese Shops”
It seems Sally made some remark a while ago about the lack of a cheese shop in Brixton. and also book shops.
To follow on where Memespring left off. Part 1
Tescos also made commitment that there would be no staff parking onsite, ( except for disabled staff). That the mge of the ice rink would have to find alternative parking for staff.
On the issue of Coach parking the officer didnt see what the problem was. There is no provision for Coach parking in application. This he sad was normal.Only set down and pick up. The officer said Coaches could go around and find somewhere else to park. In Somerleyton road or CHL.
The Chair asked about a Transport Assessment. The officer said this was not necessary as the site was already designated as a car park. I think he meant that Brixton gets a lot of traffic anyway. He said he didnt understand why people were getting worked up about a few extra coaches.
The Chair of Brixton Market Traders Federation (BMTF) interjected and said in that case Tescos car park in Acre Lane could be used for Ice Rink if parking was not considered an issue.
Cllr Sally Prentice (Cabinet Member for Regeneration, Planning, Employment and Enterprise) attended the meeting to support the application.
She gave brief history of Streatham Hub scheme. She said that issues of parking and community safety were being dealt with. ( barracking from floor) She said the rink would provide oppurtunities for young people. The Ice Rink in Brixton would bring in more people which would be good for Brixton. A survey by the Council of the night time economy had found that the majority of people who came to Brixton felt safe at night. There was no Plan B if this did not get passed.
( implying that if the committee did not agree these 3 linked applications it would be there fault if the Streatham Hub scheme folded. However at another point in the meeting Tescos were asked if they had ever thought of pulling out of the scheme. They said no. I found this curious. The Officers said that the changes to the scheme were necessary because of the recession. Tescos said it was to get the scheme finished more quickly. That they had problems due to a new sewer that was to be built under part of the site. Which was not in there control . Also that it meant they could work with TFL on a new bus turnaround. So the Tescos public reasons and the officers reason were different. This was never questioned)
Cllr Sally urged that comittee to agree the 3 applications with conditions. That this was potentially good for Brixton.
There was a barracking. And then she made her , now infamous comment,
if “existing businesses dont take advantage of new ( opportunities) then others will”
Barracking from floor chants of “Books and Cheese Shops”
It seems Sally made some remark a while ago about the lack of a cheese shop in Brixton. and also book shops.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
part 2
Chair then decided to go onto Section 106 variation
First there those opposing the variation were allowed to speak from the floor. At a PAC you get 3 minutes. And its up to the chairs discretion to allow a lot of speakers. Which to be fair she did.
Brixton Society :
This variation was for the benefit of the Streatham Hub development not Brixton. The application specifies Brixton but this does not have to be the case. Another more suitable site could be found. Officers had not looked into other sites
Werewolves:
Against variation. The Popes road site is totally inadequate. Tescos should be kept to original agreement.
Streatham resident:
Over the next three years there will spending cuts that will affect young people and the disabled. They need safe and convenient facilities. If this variation goes through they will have been betrayed by the Council. Tescos should be kept to the original agreement. This is not a difficult economic time for Tescos.
Ice Hockey team coach:
Some of the matches start late at 11pm. ( the application for Popes road says the hours are 7am to 11pm) They do not leave the rink until 1am. Some team members come from for away in SE England. It will cost more fares to get there. Some come by car as that is only way at these hours and distance. The rink at Streatham had free parking. Brixton is not safe. There was long consultation on original Section 106 agreement which took up hours of residents time. Continuity of ice provision integral to agreement. This has not happened on this variation. It took 20 years to build up club. If this is agreed team will not last as Popes road is not suitable. Dont do Tescos bidding.
Also he did not have faith in officers. Any rewrites of the agreement had led to mistakes and important details overlooked. For example originally the agreement did not mention a swimming pool in the leisure centre. ( I got the impression that many of those present did not trust Tescos to deliver the scheme. So the agreements had to be written to stop Tescos wriggling out of things later on).
Save Skating in Streatham:
Streatham Skaters had shown officers other sites but officers had not followed them up. Officers had been rude to ice rink users. There was not enough storage in Popes road plans.
Cllr Jeremy Clyne (LibDem Cllr in Streatham):
The continuity of ice in original Section 106 agreement was binding condition. This was particularly important. This proposed variation is act of betrayal. It also gives Tescos room to wriggle out of building Ice rink at future date.
Cllr Judy Best (LibDem) :
The original Streatham Hub application went through because the Section 106 guarented continuity of ice at Streatham. Tescos have just got an application passed for extra retail floorspace at Streatham. In that case ( as section 106 agreements are based on size of development) the agreement should not be varied to be less. This was alienating young people from all groups ( African, Asian etc). The Section 106 should stay in place as it is. That why the application went through in the first place.
Cllr? LbDem:
Said that Tescos had got enough from the site As Tescos said any monetary savings were being lost to the Popes road site. If they had got on with it it would have been on its way to being finished now.
Chair of Streatham board for Business:
In favour of applications. It would be a great disappointment if it did not go ahead.
Chair then decided to go onto Section 106 variation
First there those opposing the variation were allowed to speak from the floor. At a PAC you get 3 minutes. And its up to the chairs discretion to allow a lot of speakers. Which to be fair she did.
Brixton Society :
This variation was for the benefit of the Streatham Hub development not Brixton. The application specifies Brixton but this does not have to be the case. Another more suitable site could be found. Officers had not looked into other sites
Werewolves:
Against variation. The Popes road site is totally inadequate. Tescos should be kept to original agreement.
Streatham resident:
Over the next three years there will spending cuts that will affect young people and the disabled. They need safe and convenient facilities. If this variation goes through they will have been betrayed by the Council. Tescos should be kept to the original agreement. This is not a difficult economic time for Tescos.
Ice Hockey team coach:
Some of the matches start late at 11pm. ( the application for Popes road says the hours are 7am to 11pm) They do not leave the rink until 1am. Some team members come from for away in SE England. It will cost more fares to get there. Some come by car as that is only way at these hours and distance. The rink at Streatham had free parking. Brixton is not safe. There was long consultation on original Section 106 agreement which took up hours of residents time. Continuity of ice provision integral to agreement. This has not happened on this variation. It took 20 years to build up club. If this is agreed team will not last as Popes road is not suitable. Dont do Tescos bidding.
Also he did not have faith in officers. Any rewrites of the agreement had led to mistakes and important details overlooked. For example originally the agreement did not mention a swimming pool in the leisure centre. ( I got the impression that many of those present did not trust Tescos to deliver the scheme. So the agreements had to be written to stop Tescos wriggling out of things later on).
Save Skating in Streatham:
Streatham Skaters had shown officers other sites but officers had not followed them up. Officers had been rude to ice rink users. There was not enough storage in Popes road plans.
Cllr Jeremy Clyne (LibDem Cllr in Streatham):
The continuity of ice in original Section 106 agreement was binding condition. This was particularly important. This proposed variation is act of betrayal. It also gives Tescos room to wriggle out of building Ice rink at future date.
Cllr Judy Best (LibDem) :
The original Streatham Hub application went through because the Section 106 guarented continuity of ice at Streatham. Tescos have just got an application passed for extra retail floorspace at Streatham. In that case ( as section 106 agreements are based on size of development) the agreement should not be varied to be less. This was alienating young people from all groups ( African, Asian etc). The Section 106 should stay in place as it is. That why the application went through in the first place.
Cllr? LbDem:
Said that Tescos had got enough from the site As Tescos said any monetary savings were being lost to the Popes road site. If they had got on with it it would have been on its way to being finished now.
Chair of Streatham board for Business:
In favour of applications. It would be a great disappointment if it did not go ahead.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
part 3
The Chair asked officers if an Equalties Impact Assessment had been done. And why a Transport Assessment had not been done.
The officer said that no EIA had or Transport Assessment had been done as they were not required.
The Council Lawyer said that the Council can modify the Section 106.
It appears that the Mayor cannot call in a Section 106 variation. The Mayor at the time of the original planning application for the Hub did call it in. He ordered Lambeth to refuse it. As it is strategic sport site for London he had that power. Ken, who was mayor at the time, made sure that the application had continuity of ice.The Mayor , however,does not have power to call in a variation of a Section 106. Its a loophole in planning regs. This was not meant to happen to Section 106 agreements. The Popes road application does not count as a strategic issue in his power to call in. As it is adding something to Brixton in planning terms. He cannot direct Council to refuse it. As I have been told across London many are now concerned that this drives a coach and horses through Section 106 agreements. It means that developers on other schemes now know that they can vary , in there interest , vary Section 106 agreements at a later date. Making them toothless in practise. The Secretary of State has also said it is not in his power to interfere.
I have been told Lambeth Officers are very happy about that.
Officers then spoke:
This variation and the other 2 applications will facilitate finishing Hub scheme without due harm to Brixton. There are 3 issues. Firstly Does it work for users? Secondly will conditions and obligations ( on Tescos) mitigate harm? Thirdly This is short term parking solution ( Porden road) not long term strategy which is still in place.
Officer suggested conditions:
That Werewolves have parking spaces reserved for them when they are playing.
That the deed of variation of the Section 106. Once it has been finalised by officers and Tescos be sent back to committee for approval. ( This is unusual. Normally committee sets parameters and officers finish it without going back to committee). This is because, officers say, they know how important this variation is and want Committee chance to go over it in detail.
After intervention by Cllr Palmer the officer said that circumstance now are different than when the original agreements were made. The state of ice rink ( this started to be used as excuse by officers at this point. They implied it was at end of life and if these applications were not passed it may close and there would be no ice rink at all. Tescos also , said at other pont in meeting that they had tried there best to keep rink open.) and the state of economy. Circumstances had moved on. Officers insisted they had clear regeneration strategy and would pin Tescos down to deliver it. They also said that Tescos investment decisions were made on the commercial viability of each site not on the overall corporate profitablility of Tescos. This means that Tescos whilst making large profits in a recession overall look at each site on an individual basis. Which is imo to squeeze as much profit out of each site they own at least cost to themselves.
Cllr Palmer then said the mezzanine extension to the Tescos site at Streatham. ( They got increased floorspace on extra floor not in original application) was pushed through in a few weeks. Officers replied they had to do the “art of the possible”.
Cllr Palmer reminded officers that he had been chair of planning committee when the original Hub scheme had been agreed. Years ago now. That the continuity of ice at Streatham was all important to agree the scheme. Now the same officers were coming back with something completely different. I could see officers didnt like this at all. He also said that Tescos , at the time in 2003 , had convinced everyone they were committed to the original scheme. This present situation was potentially an unmitigated disaster.
Cllr Ling (Labour) She said that she wanted a condition that the Porden road car park close at 10pm. She said that she learnt to skate at Streatham when she was young. This ( applications) were not a perfect solution but only way to get Streatham Hub scheme delivered. She asked Tescos that if these applications not passed would they pull out?They said no “not consider that will happen”.
Cllr Edbrooke was concerned about community safety. She was told that a Community Safety Plan was being drawn up by the Brixton Town Centre Manager. ( as an aside I notice even before these applications were agreed a lot of officer time was spent on things like this. One might think the Council was sure the applications would be passed). This would be signed off by Borough Commander. There would be additional policing. But the details cannot be divulged for security reasons.
Cllr Palmer asked about conditions to make sure that Tescos only allowed to open store on handover of completed rink and leisure centre in Streatham in full working order. He wanted to make sure that this was written up tightly to make sure Lambeth did not end up with problems with new facilities.
Tescos answered that the contract to build leisure facilities wont go out until contracts are agreed with officers. The Tesco officer said that he lived in Lambeth and had children. He did not want to be involved in a scheme that did not deliver. He complemented Lambeth Officers on there rigour in looking at Tescos plans. That Lambeth would have its own Clerk of Works onsite to make sure works proceeded as planned.
( I noticed a close relationship between Lambeth officers and Tescos . Im not saying corrupt. What I see is that senior officers and a developer work together on a scheme and develop a working relationship. This means that the general public do not get a look in until it comes to planning committees. We are just a nuisance they have to deal with at planning meetings.There ends up being no genuine consultation of local people. As someone said to me at meeting the Council talk about a “Cooperative Council” involving the community but this is not how it works. Despite the Brixton Masterplan , Brixton Stakeholders Meeting etc which both purport to say the diverse communities that make up Brixton should be involved in developing Brixton. This was all binned when Tescos demanded to change the plans. As Lloyd Leon said at the meeting when Tescos tell Lambeth to jump they jump.)
Cllr Palmer said at Kennington Tescos had new store built but it was not in the colours agreed at planning. This dragged on for years.
Cllr Braithwaite (Labour)
She asked about the 3 year temporary nature of the rink at Popes road. How can it be guarented that it will be 3 years and not more. On the evening of the meeting officers had presented an addendum to reports that there should be a provision to extend it if circumstances dictated. ( officers then said that new application would be needed). Tescos said this would not happen as there was a one year “buffer” built into there plans. She also asked for clarification on handover once Hub is built. She said buildings must be complete and ready to operate.
Rachel Heywood (Cabinet Member for Communities and Community Safety) asked to address the committee ( she is also a cllr for Coldharbour ward). She said she had been working with officers and Borough Commander ( barracking from floor) and was now satisfied that a robust plan was being put in place for community safety.
By now it was gone midnight. The Chair then started to sum up extra conditions. Then to vote on the 2 applications and variation to Section 106.
Porden road application for car park-
extra conditions Height restrictor for vehicles, more safety signs to warn of cyclists, better signage, close at 10 pm not 11pm, CTTV and lighting to be finalised.
This was voted on and passed.
4 ( Labour) for
1 against (Cllr Palmer LibDem)
-----------------------------------------------------------
Popes road application for temporary ice rink
Condition to restrict parking so cannot be used by staff of ice rink, something about storage (sorry I was flaking by this point).
There was a discussion about whether PAC can see Community Safety Plan. There is a problem here as its kept from public.
There was also discussion about the hours of opening. The committee thought they should be longer. Streatham is open until 1 or 2 am. Several people from Streatahm had complained about short hours at Popes road. Officers said that this was an oversight.( I had already said at committee that extra hours might be sought and that this could affect residential amenity. I also said that I had seen applications before with short hours which applicants would get extended at some future time. It was a technique used to get initial applications passed.)
This was passed
one Labour Cllr Edbrooke abstained
Cllr Palmer voted for
Passed
-------------------------------------------------------
Variation to Section 106
There was discussion between officers and committee members about commitment to make sure Tescos handed over completed facilities in good working order. There was legal argument here as well. It seems that some of the kitting out of the leisure centre is down to Lambeth ( or those they tender out to run centre) so its not possible to “fetter” Tesco with responsibilties that are not theres. Seems a grey area to me.
Variation to Section 106 passed
Cllr Edbrooke abstained
Cllr Palmer voted against.
It was gone 1am when the meeting finished. Most people were still there.
The Chair asked officers if an Equalties Impact Assessment had been done. And why a Transport Assessment had not been done.
The officer said that no EIA had or Transport Assessment had been done as they were not required.
The Council Lawyer said that the Council can modify the Section 106.
It appears that the Mayor cannot call in a Section 106 variation. The Mayor at the time of the original planning application for the Hub did call it in. He ordered Lambeth to refuse it. As it is strategic sport site for London he had that power. Ken, who was mayor at the time, made sure that the application had continuity of ice.The Mayor , however,does not have power to call in a variation of a Section 106. Its a loophole in planning regs. This was not meant to happen to Section 106 agreements. The Popes road application does not count as a strategic issue in his power to call in. As it is adding something to Brixton in planning terms. He cannot direct Council to refuse it. As I have been told across London many are now concerned that this drives a coach and horses through Section 106 agreements. It means that developers on other schemes now know that they can vary , in there interest , vary Section 106 agreements at a later date. Making them toothless in practise. The Secretary of State has also said it is not in his power to interfere.
I have been told Lambeth Officers are very happy about that.
Officers then spoke:
This variation and the other 2 applications will facilitate finishing Hub scheme without due harm to Brixton. There are 3 issues. Firstly Does it work for users? Secondly will conditions and obligations ( on Tescos) mitigate harm? Thirdly This is short term parking solution ( Porden road) not long term strategy which is still in place.
Officer suggested conditions:
That Werewolves have parking spaces reserved for them when they are playing.
That the deed of variation of the Section 106. Once it has been finalised by officers and Tescos be sent back to committee for approval. ( This is unusual. Normally committee sets parameters and officers finish it without going back to committee). This is because, officers say, they know how important this variation is and want Committee chance to go over it in detail.
After intervention by Cllr Palmer the officer said that circumstance now are different than when the original agreements were made. The state of ice rink ( this started to be used as excuse by officers at this point. They implied it was at end of life and if these applications were not passed it may close and there would be no ice rink at all. Tescos also , said at other pont in meeting that they had tried there best to keep rink open.) and the state of economy. Circumstances had moved on. Officers insisted they had clear regeneration strategy and would pin Tescos down to deliver it. They also said that Tescos investment decisions were made on the commercial viability of each site not on the overall corporate profitablility of Tescos. This means that Tescos whilst making large profits in a recession overall look at each site on an individual basis. Which is imo to squeeze as much profit out of each site they own at least cost to themselves.
Cllr Palmer then said the mezzanine extension to the Tescos site at Streatham. ( They got increased floorspace on extra floor not in original application) was pushed through in a few weeks. Officers replied they had to do the “art of the possible”.
Cllr Palmer reminded officers that he had been chair of planning committee when the original Hub scheme had been agreed. Years ago now. That the continuity of ice at Streatham was all important to agree the scheme. Now the same officers were coming back with something completely different. I could see officers didnt like this at all. He also said that Tescos , at the time in 2003 , had convinced everyone they were committed to the original scheme. This present situation was potentially an unmitigated disaster.
Cllr Ling (Labour) She said that she wanted a condition that the Porden road car park close at 10pm. She said that she learnt to skate at Streatham when she was young. This ( applications) were not a perfect solution but only way to get Streatham Hub scheme delivered. She asked Tescos that if these applications not passed would they pull out?They said no “not consider that will happen”.
Cllr Edbrooke was concerned about community safety. She was told that a Community Safety Plan was being drawn up by the Brixton Town Centre Manager. ( as an aside I notice even before these applications were agreed a lot of officer time was spent on things like this. One might think the Council was sure the applications would be passed). This would be signed off by Borough Commander. There would be additional policing. But the details cannot be divulged for security reasons.
Cllr Palmer asked about conditions to make sure that Tescos only allowed to open store on handover of completed rink and leisure centre in Streatham in full working order. He wanted to make sure that this was written up tightly to make sure Lambeth did not end up with problems with new facilities.
Tescos answered that the contract to build leisure facilities wont go out until contracts are agreed with officers. The Tesco officer said that he lived in Lambeth and had children. He did not want to be involved in a scheme that did not deliver. He complemented Lambeth Officers on there rigour in looking at Tescos plans. That Lambeth would have its own Clerk of Works onsite to make sure works proceeded as planned.
( I noticed a close relationship between Lambeth officers and Tescos . Im not saying corrupt. What I see is that senior officers and a developer work together on a scheme and develop a working relationship. This means that the general public do not get a look in until it comes to planning committees. We are just a nuisance they have to deal with at planning meetings.There ends up being no genuine consultation of local people. As someone said to me at meeting the Council talk about a “Cooperative Council” involving the community but this is not how it works. Despite the Brixton Masterplan , Brixton Stakeholders Meeting etc which both purport to say the diverse communities that make up Brixton should be involved in developing Brixton. This was all binned when Tescos demanded to change the plans. As Lloyd Leon said at the meeting when Tescos tell Lambeth to jump they jump.)
Cllr Palmer said at Kennington Tescos had new store built but it was not in the colours agreed at planning. This dragged on for years.
Cllr Braithwaite (Labour)
She asked about the 3 year temporary nature of the rink at Popes road. How can it be guarented that it will be 3 years and not more. On the evening of the meeting officers had presented an addendum to reports that there should be a provision to extend it if circumstances dictated. ( officers then said that new application would be needed). Tescos said this would not happen as there was a one year “buffer” built into there plans. She also asked for clarification on handover once Hub is built. She said buildings must be complete and ready to operate.
Rachel Heywood (Cabinet Member for Communities and Community Safety) asked to address the committee ( she is also a cllr for Coldharbour ward). She said she had been working with officers and Borough Commander ( barracking from floor) and was now satisfied that a robust plan was being put in place for community safety.
By now it was gone midnight. The Chair then started to sum up extra conditions. Then to vote on the 2 applications and variation to Section 106.
Porden road application for car park-
extra conditions Height restrictor for vehicles, more safety signs to warn of cyclists, better signage, close at 10 pm not 11pm, CTTV and lighting to be finalised.
This was voted on and passed.
4 ( Labour) for
1 against (Cllr Palmer LibDem)
-----------------------------------------------------------
Popes road application for temporary ice rink
Condition to restrict parking so cannot be used by staff of ice rink, something about storage (sorry I was flaking by this point).
There was a discussion about whether PAC can see Community Safety Plan. There is a problem here as its kept from public.
There was also discussion about the hours of opening. The committee thought they should be longer. Streatham is open until 1 or 2 am. Several people from Streatahm had complained about short hours at Popes road. Officers said that this was an oversight.( I had already said at committee that extra hours might be sought and that this could affect residential amenity. I also said that I had seen applications before with short hours which applicants would get extended at some future time. It was a technique used to get initial applications passed.)
This was passed
one Labour Cllr Edbrooke abstained
Cllr Palmer voted for
Passed
-------------------------------------------------------
Variation to Section 106
There was discussion between officers and committee members about commitment to make sure Tescos handed over completed facilities in good working order. There was legal argument here as well. It seems that some of the kitting out of the leisure centre is down to Lambeth ( or those they tender out to run centre) so its not possible to “fetter” Tesco with responsibilties that are not theres. Seems a grey area to me.
Variation to Section 106 passed
Cllr Edbrooke abstained
Cllr Palmer voted against.
It was gone 1am when the meeting finished. Most people were still there.
Minnie_the_Minx
someinenhhanding menbag and me ah bollox
Not sure why, but that concerns me
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
This was what I said at the PAC. I had to cut some of it as I went over my 3 minutes. I knew a lot would be said about the larger issues so I said I would address some issues of residential amenity as its called in planning. I managed to get the last bit in:
I am local resident of central Brixton. I am concerned that the effect of this development on residential amenity has not been taken into account.
I live in central Brixton and noise problems are an issue. The area of Brixton where the rink is proposed to be situated has a residential housing right next to it.
This part of Brixton has always been a relatively quiet area. Whilst the officers report says that measures to stop noise nuisance will be put in place its debatable how effective they will be in practise.
The hours of operation will be longer than the Recreation Centre next door which closes at latest 10pm in the week and 8pm Saturday and Sunday. Im not clear on the opening hours for the ice rink. The one at Streatham was open until late at night. I notice the officers say that the rink in Popes road will be open from 7am until 11pm. But in my experience once an establishment is built they then apply for longer hours at a later date.
Even if it closes at 11pm this is late. By the time everyome leaves the area it will be half eleven to midnight. In particular on weekends. I cant see but this will impact on local residents in the area. The issues around this are not fully dealt with in the officers report.
The issue of parking for the rink is liable to impact on Brixton residents. The officers report does say that coaches will be able to set down and pick up passengers but no long term parking is provided. This will mean coaches and mini buses going around central Brixton looking for somewhere to park.
I think a full transport assessment should be done to see what impact it will have on local residents. Most people coming to the ice rink , due to the large amount of kit they require ,will need to use cars or coaches. The officers report states that Brixton has a high rating for transprt links so a full transport assessment does not need to be done. But this is for public transport not the kind of transport those using the rink will use.
I am concerned in particular on the effect of noise leakage from the proposed ice rink. I am not clear what kind of noise assessment has been done.
In an earlier Officers report it was stated that noise assessment was not done from inside the car park as no access was given for safety reasons. This means that any assessment is guesswork rather than onsite evaluation of impact of noise.
The noise impact of the ice making machinery is also a concern. Officers state that noise level will not be much above background level. However will the ice making machinery be operative all day and night? Night time is quiet in that area so what is same as background noise in daytime is not the same at night. There is argument whether sound attentuation measures will be effective.
Policing is also an issue. With cuts coming to all public services I dont see that the police will have the manpower to deal with any issues that a large development like this will bring to central Brixton.
It has been stated that the rink will clean up this corner of Brixton. That the area around Popes road and the car park was dark underused and this led to ASB. The police recommendations for increased lighting CCTV etc could have been done years age if that was the case. The argument put forward that the ice rink this will reduce crime in this area is a red herring. The car park was allowed over the years to fall into disrepair and measures to control ASB were not put in place.
Also I notice the Police recomendations are that there should be natural surveillance from the Ice Rink to deter crime and ASB. There will be token windows on one side but this will not be effective. There is a problem here as windows providing natural surveillance cannot be put in an ice rink. Its effectively a closed box.
Lastly as a long term resident of Brixton I feel strongly that the market is the heart of Brixton and any developments in central Brixton should foster the long term future of the market . Im particularly concerned about the lack of consultation with Brixton residents and traders. Under the Brixton masterplan working with and retaining local communities was emphasised. This has not happened with this development. Its imo being done in the interests of Tescos not the local community.
I am local resident of central Brixton. I am concerned that the effect of this development on residential amenity has not been taken into account.
I live in central Brixton and noise problems are an issue. The area of Brixton where the rink is proposed to be situated has a residential housing right next to it.
This part of Brixton has always been a relatively quiet area. Whilst the officers report says that measures to stop noise nuisance will be put in place its debatable how effective they will be in practise.
The hours of operation will be longer than the Recreation Centre next door which closes at latest 10pm in the week and 8pm Saturday and Sunday. Im not clear on the opening hours for the ice rink. The one at Streatham was open until late at night. I notice the officers say that the rink in Popes road will be open from 7am until 11pm. But in my experience once an establishment is built they then apply for longer hours at a later date.
Even if it closes at 11pm this is late. By the time everyome leaves the area it will be half eleven to midnight. In particular on weekends. I cant see but this will impact on local residents in the area. The issues around this are not fully dealt with in the officers report.
The issue of parking for the rink is liable to impact on Brixton residents. The officers report does say that coaches will be able to set down and pick up passengers but no long term parking is provided. This will mean coaches and mini buses going around central Brixton looking for somewhere to park.
I think a full transport assessment should be done to see what impact it will have on local residents. Most people coming to the ice rink , due to the large amount of kit they require ,will need to use cars or coaches. The officers report states that Brixton has a high rating for transprt links so a full transport assessment does not need to be done. But this is for public transport not the kind of transport those using the rink will use.
I am concerned in particular on the effect of noise leakage from the proposed ice rink. I am not clear what kind of noise assessment has been done.
In an earlier Officers report it was stated that noise assessment was not done from inside the car park as no access was given for safety reasons. This means that any assessment is guesswork rather than onsite evaluation of impact of noise.
The noise impact of the ice making machinery is also a concern. Officers state that noise level will not be much above background level. However will the ice making machinery be operative all day and night? Night time is quiet in that area so what is same as background noise in daytime is not the same at night. There is argument whether sound attentuation measures will be effective.
Policing is also an issue. With cuts coming to all public services I dont see that the police will have the manpower to deal with any issues that a large development like this will bring to central Brixton.
It has been stated that the rink will clean up this corner of Brixton. That the area around Popes road and the car park was dark underused and this led to ASB. The police recommendations for increased lighting CCTV etc could have been done years age if that was the case. The argument put forward that the ice rink this will reduce crime in this area is a red herring. The car park was allowed over the years to fall into disrepair and measures to control ASB were not put in place.
Also I notice the Police recomendations are that there should be natural surveillance from the Ice Rink to deter crime and ASB. There will be token windows on one side but this will not be effective. There is a problem here as windows providing natural surveillance cannot be put in an ice rink. Its effectively a closed box.
Lastly as a long term resident of Brixton I feel strongly that the market is the heart of Brixton and any developments in central Brixton should foster the long term future of the market . Im particularly concerned about the lack of consultation with Brixton residents and traders. Under the Brixton masterplan working with and retaining local communities was emphasised. This has not happened with this development. Its imo being done in the interests of Tescos not the local community.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
Whether the car park had to be demolished is up for debate. See Post 43 Minnies post below.
Mine when haywire was some reason.
Minnie_the_Minx
someinenhhanding menbag and me ah bollox
My eyes 
I'm seeing stars
I'm seeing stars
Minnie_the_Minx
someinenhhanding menbag and me ah bollox
Less starry eyed version
Minnie_the_Minx
someinenhhanding menbag and me ah bollox
Thanks minnie.I was trying to sort that out. Why did that happen? I cut and pasted it.
No idea, far too technical for me to understand these things. It's like when people forward you emails with all those >>>>>> signs
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
Yes it is it was not mentioned in the officers reports for the meeting.
That was what I thought was strange about the meeting. The officers kept saying it was due to the economic situation. Tescos used different arguments. Also they ( and officers) never mentioned that they recently got the plans changed to have larger store on the site. The variation to the Section 106 should have been discussed then as developers contributions are related to size of a development.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
http://cr2010.tescoplc.com/communities.aspx
from Tescos website. Cllr Judy mentioned it at PAC:
"We firmly believe that community action is most likely to be meaningful, to have positive impact, and to be sustained, if it is genuinely local and involves local people."
Pic of head of Tescos Terry Leahy
from Tescos website. Cllr Judy mentioned it at PAC:
"We firmly believe that community action is most likely to be meaningful, to have positive impact, and to be sustained, if it is genuinely local and involves local people."
Pic of head of Tescos Terry Leahy
Attachments
Minnie_the_Minx
someinenhhanding menbag and me ah bollox
Cooperative Council
I reckon Tescbeth has more of a ring to it, although it may be problematic if you have a speech impediment
leanderman
Street Party: July 2
So this largely seems to be about preserving a car park for food shoppers?
That will be a hard sell to globally-warmed grandchildren in 50 years' time. Or in terms of health and fitness, when we, according to some reports, have the fattest population in Europe.
Minnie_the_Minx
someinenhhanding menbag and me ah bollox
People come from outside of Brixton to get speciality foods in Brixton that they may have trouble getting elsewhere. If they've nowhere to park whilst doing shopping, then they may find elsewhere to shop
If they shop elsewhere, then the Brixton shopowners/market traders will be out of pocket
(1) which councillor said this, " “White middle class people want to shop in Brixton and buy books and cheese from cheese shops. They want to stroll around Brixton and not have to look at 16 horrible looking meat shops on Electric Avenue, It is time for Brixton to move on”.?
(2) It's not just about speciality food shopping. It's about doing your main food shopping in Brixton Market. Lots of people still do, although not many white middle class people who get their stuff from Ocado. Tesco wants everyone to do their main shopping at Tesco, obviously.
The Market is in competition with Tesco. It is not a strong competitor, but it is a competitor and Tesco would like to see it gone (as a competitor: daresay it's happy for the tourist attraction to continue. But it won't be viable)
There should be parking parity with Tesco: the same number of parking spaces per sq. m of retail space, next to the retail space. A "market" car park next to Tescos is just an extension to Tesco's car park, not new parking for central Brixton the other side of the High Road. Of all the decisions, the Porden Rd one is really the most perverse.
(3) Streatham Skaters are investigating a judicial review.
(2) It's not just about speciality food shopping. It's about doing your main food shopping in Brixton Market. Lots of people still do, although not many white middle class people who get their stuff from Ocado. Tesco wants everyone to do their main shopping at Tesco, obviously.
The Market is in competition with Tesco. It is not a strong competitor, but it is a competitor and Tesco would like to see it gone (as a competitor: daresay it's happy for the tourist attraction to continue. But it won't be viable)
There should be parking parity with Tesco: the same number of parking spaces per sq. m of retail space, next to the retail space. A "market" car park next to Tescos is just an extension to Tesco's car park, not new parking for central Brixton the other side of the High Road. Of all the decisions, the Porden Rd one is really the most perverse.
(3) Streatham Skaters are investigating a judicial review.
Streatham_Mao
Active Member
I've posted an audio file of Prentice's speech in the other thread. Maybe a mod should merge them or something? We're covering the same ground here.
Streatham_Mao
Active Member
I'm not saying you're making this up, but do we have a time and place?
I'm going to ask the Cabinet Member and a source would be nice in case she tries to elide or brazen it out.
Rushy
basically a scrotum
There have been a huge number of different arguments against the proposals many of which I think should, on balance, not be an obstacle to the development. To my mind the one big issue is the loss of parking in the town centre. In general I am in favour of reducing dependence on cars and I think the market should be looking at ways to contribute towards this, such as delivery services.
But. The ice rink development is being put in place in order to facilitate the development of a new supermarket with huge amounts of parking. The ice rink will also mean that the same developers are left with the only shopping venue with generous adjacent parking in Brixton. Not only that - they are the closest shopping centre to the new replacement parking.
It is blatantly one rule for Tescos and another for all the other local businesses and for that reason alone it is a very real betrayal.
What Brixton needs is for local people to start putting forward new independent councillors - not affiliated with the parties. With notable exceptions, many of the existing ones are either useless or have their eyes on higher political goals.
Sadly, I also think that the new carpark will be a horrible disaster for the residents of Porden Road. They should consider closing the road off where it bends and using the eastern road for 2-way carpark access, separating it from the residential area.
But. The ice rink development is being put in place in order to facilitate the development of a new supermarket with huge amounts of parking. The ice rink will also mean that the same developers are left with the only shopping venue with generous adjacent parking in Brixton. Not only that - they are the closest shopping centre to the new replacement parking.
It is blatantly one rule for Tescos and another for all the other local businesses and for that reason alone it is a very real betrayal.
What Brixton needs is for local people to start putting forward new independent councillors - not affiliated with the parties. With notable exceptions, many of the existing ones are either useless or have their eyes on higher political goals.
Sadly, I also think that the new carpark will be a horrible disaster for the residents of Porden Road. They should consider closing the road off where it bends and using the eastern road for 2-way carpark access, separating it from the residential area.
Rushy
basically a scrotum
^^^^^ This is an good point. It is important that good working relationships exist but if those relationships are only with the developer, it is easy to see how local people become a "nuisance" or "obstacle" for the working team to navigate around. Objections then make the developer/council relationship stronger.
It was reported by another commenter on the Streatham Pulse report of the meeting - so I wondered if anyone else had heard it. I can't quite believe that even Lambeth Labour would be quite so stupid to say something like that in an open, and recorded, meeting. But if so, name and shame.
