Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Lambeth Council Watch - news and updates about the 'co-operative' council

CH1 said:
£147,150 for a feasibility study. Back in 1994 the going rate for a feasibility study for Brixton Challenge was £10,000!
Click to expand...
There’s not really any such thing as a going rate for feasibility studies. Fees depend on the time and services involved and the scale of the project.

This proposal is to take the process up to the end of RIBA 2 - Concept Design. This generally involves roughly 20% of the professional services work required to complete a construction project. So, it follows that there might be eventual fees of c£750k to deliver the resulting project.

At a rough reckon, professional fees might comprise c10% of the eventual capital expenditure (typical but a reasonable guess absent of other info), so this would imply a potential capital investment in the estate of around £7.5m is imagined. That’s a relatively small sum for an urban regeneration scheme.

All this made without comment on the merits or demerits of this case. I don’t know anything about it. Just a bit of context on fees in the built environment sector.
 
Tricky Skills said:
Buzzed: Brixton Rec left out of Conservation Area as Lambeth Council proposes changes to protected building rights
Click to expand...
Not sure I agree with altering the Loughborough Park CA.
The shops opposite the Barrier block were added as an extension in 1987 one of the arguments put forward at the time being a sort of "group value" - demonstrating the shops formerly known as Gresham Terrace (1850s) the terraced houses 290 - 320 Coldharbour Lane (1860s) compared to the much grander houses opposite (1840s) leading to the now abominated Mansion blocks 258 - 278 Coldharbour Lane (1890s).

Curiously Lambeth Council are very picky about development control, even in a conservation area. They did not prevent the ghastly botched mansard roof extensions on the top of the mansions - yet Lambeth objected to a flue being inserted in the BACK of the former Angel public house to enable pizza cooking. The only people able to view the back at the time were passengers on the southern railway - though with the Coal Lane development there are now indeed residents who overlook the rear of the shops and the railway on the other side.
Here is the evidence of Lambeth "Mansardist" tendency (which is also evident on many residential roads in SW2 - remarkably so in Barnwell Road IMHO)
1703845484435.pngmansard.JPG
How can they even pretend this is conservation?
Likewise the notorious case of the Pizza Flue - which has now been surpassed by a post-modern £600,00 per flat ON A RISING GROUND RENT prefab block
1703845686959.png

How exactly does it help putting this bit of "conserved" Lambeth Heritage into the Brixton Town Centre Conservsation Area?

I've got three words to say to Lambeth: "Up Yours Delors" - though unfortunately the great man has just died (R.I.P.) Jacques Delors obituary
 
Another victim of the people headed by Fiona Connolly, Lambeth Council's "Corporate Director of Housing and Adult Social Care":

"A disabled man says he has been forced to spend thousands of pounds on takeaways after the council failed to complete repairs on his kitchen for a year ..."
Click to expand...

Screenshot-2024-01-04-at-10.05.52-664x500.png


(Source: Garfield Brown)​

‘I feel like I don’t exist’: Council leaves disabled man in flat with no kitchen for a year after failing to complete repairs


Fiona.jpg


(Source: Lambeth Together)​

“We are sorry for any inconvenience these delays have caused Mr Brown. We’re disappointed that we haven’t yet been able to complete these repairs and bring his home up to standard, but we have agreed an appointment for next Monday to finish the repairs.”
 
felonius monk said:
www.brixtonbuzz.com

Lambeth sets out plans for redevelopment at four major sites in Brixton

Lambeth Council has revised some of the plans for the sites it wants to redevelop in the future.
www.brixtonbuzz.com www.brixtonbuzz.com
Click to expand...
There are MAD!!! Not only do we have the yet as unrealised demolition of the Lambeth Hospital in Landor Road - not fit for purpose because it was built in 1994.
Now the mental health centre at 332-334 Brixton Road - which was built to a special design to fit in with the conservation area at the same time.
Is Lambeth Council serving the residents - or some kind of PFI Bermuda based property cabal in this?

BTW the Tesco site and the Curry site have been low-hanging fruit for years are they are single storey shopping buildings designed in the mid 1980s for out-of-town use.
I should add that the Tecos site (approved under the Ted Knight régime) involved demolishing the oldest house in Acre Lane - "Every Little Helps!"
 
The Brixton site allocations are on pages 334-367 (Tesco site, Effra Rd retail park and 330 Brixton Road). Doesn't look like there is too much in any of these that seems controversial. There's quite a lot of changes elsewhere in the document - the contentious sites are going to be those around St Thomas's Hospital
 
technical said:
The Brixton site allocations are on pages 334-367 (Tesco site, Effra Rd retail park and 330 Brixton Road). Doesn't look like there is too much in any of these that seems controversial. There's quite a lot of changes elsewhere in the document - the contentious sites are going to be those around St Thomas's Hospital
Click to expand...
But massive reductions in proposed housing in other sites throughout Lambeth.

Site 3 35 – 37 and Car Park, Leigham Court, Road, SW16 • Reduction in the number of residential units to be delivered. Decreased from 30-35 units to 25-30 units.
Site 7 6 – 12 Kennington Lane and Wooden Spon House, 5 Dugard Way, SE11 • Reduction in the number of residential units proposed. Decreased from 135-145 units to 115-125 units
Site 8 110 Stamford Street, SE1 • Reduction in the number of residential units proposed. Decreased from 30-40 units to 30 units
Site 17 330 – 336 Brixton Road, SW9 • Reduction in the number of residential units proposed. Decreased from 70-75 units to 60-70 units.
Site 18 300 – 346 Norwood Road • Reduction in the number of residential units proposed. Decreased from 390-470 units to 150-170 units.
Site 22 1 & 3–11 Wellfit Street, 7–9 Hinton Road & Units 1–4 Hardess Street SE24 • Reduction in the number of residential units proposed. Decreased from 70-90 units to 50-70 units.
Site 21 51-57 Effra Road, SW2 • Reduction in the number of residential units proposed. Decreased from 200-240 units to 85-95 units.
Site 23 Land at corner of Coldharbour Lane and Herne Hill Road, SE24 • Reduction in the number of residential units proposed. Decreased from 30-40 units to 25-30 units.

The one exception is
Site 20 Tesco, 13 Acre Lane, SW2 • Proposed quantum of residential development increased from 120-170 units to 180-210 units.

The council is in the pocket of the NIMBYists. Don't expect an end to the housing crisis until we get a change in leadership.
 
Tulster218 said:
The council is in the pocket of the NIMBYists. Don't expect an end to the housing crisis until we get a change in leadership.
Click to expand...
Quite the contrary. The council is in the pocket of property companies and commercial housing associations who delight in high rise living. Partly because these far-eastern investors demanded it in the 2010s and their off-plan pre-payments were part of the developers business model. Never mind long-suffering tenants all over the country waiting since the 60s for more traditional housing.

As anyone walking along Coldharbour Lane can see Loughborough Junction is in full high-rise swing with much more to come - yet the council can't even manage to get disabled access for our station on section 106.

Do YOU see shared ownership of a 20th floor 2 bedroom flat as the panacea for overcrowded working class families???
 
Tulster218 said:
But massive reductions in proposed housing in other sites throughout Lambeth.

Site 3 35 – 37 and Car Park, Leigham Court, Road, SW16 • Reduction in the number of residential units to be delivered. Decreased from 30-35 units to 25-30 units.
Site 7 6 – 12 Kennington Lane and Wooden Spon House, 5 Dugard Way, SE11 • Reduction in the number of residential units proposed. Decreased from 135-145 units to 115-125 units
Site 8 110 Stamford Street, SE1 • Reduction in the number of residential units proposed. Decreased from 30-40 units to 30 units
Site 17 330 – 336 Brixton Road, SW9 • Reduction in the number of residential units proposed. Decreased from 70-75 units to 60-70 units.
Site 18 300 – 346 Norwood Road • Reduction in the number of residential units proposed. Decreased from 390-470 units to 150-170 units.
Site 22 1 & 3–11 Wellfit Street, 7–9 Hinton Road & Units 1–4 Hardess Street SE24 • Reduction in the number of residential units proposed. Decreased from 70-90 units to 50-70 units.
Site 21 51-57 Effra Road, SW2 • Reduction in the number of residential units proposed. Decreased from 200-240 units to 85-95 units.
Site 23 Land at corner of Coldharbour Lane and Herne Hill Road, SE24 • Reduction in the number of residential units proposed. Decreased from 30-40 units to 25-30 units.

The one exception is
Site 20 Tesco, 13 Acre Lane, SW2 • Proposed quantum of residential development increased from 120-170 units to 180-210 units.

The council is in the pocket of the NIMBYists. Don't expect an end to the housing crisis until we get a change in leadership.
Click to expand...

I'd hardly call a reduction in housing units of around 300 'massive', particularly when there's an overall target for the borough in the local plan of over 13,000.

This is in a way one of the objectives of the planning system - identify where the opportunities are and then work out what capacity each site has. A lot of these reductions are a result of understanding what the impacts will be on the locality as a result of the previous consultation - whether that's things like transport, infrastructure or effects on townscape and heritage.
 
CH1 said:
Curiously Lambeth Council are very picky about development control, even in a conservation area. They did not prevent the ghastly botched mansard roof extensions on the top of the mansions - yet Lambeth objected to a flue being inserted in the BACK of the former Angel public house to enable pizza cooking. The only people able to view the back at the time were passengers on the southern railway - though with the Coal Lane development there are now indeed residents who overlook the rear of the shops and the railway on the other side.
Here is the evidence of Lambeth "Mansardist" tendency (which is also evident on many residential roads in SW2 - remarkably so in Barnwell Road IMHO)
Click to expand...
Are you against mansard roofs in general? I think they're excellent - a way to raise density in existing residential areas, without much disruption. I like the look too. Your example - Barnwell Road - looks odd precisely because Lambeth don't approve mansard roofs any more (that's official planning policy IIRC).
 
Table Wolf said:
Are you against mansard roofs in general? I think they're excellent - a way to raise density in existing residential areas, without much disruption. I like the look too. Your example - Barnwell Road - looks odd precisely because Lambeth don't approve mansard roofs any more (that's official planning policy IIRC).
Click to expand...
Had this been the 1980s it might have been possible to declare a Barnwell Housing action area and have a uniform design along the whole street.
Unfortunately what you have is a visual mess.

In the case of the Coldharbour Lane mansion blocks - this is over-development. The buildings have no foundations in true Victorian style. If you watched the recent three part documentary on TB Joshua you got a vivid understanding of what happens when extra stories are added onto building by unqualified developers
(first few seconds)
 
Yet another victim of the people headed by Fiona Connolly, Lambeth Council's "Corporate Director of Housing and Adult Social Care":

‘I can feel it in my throat’: Elderly woman left in council flat smelling of gas for four years

42c6cc21-9c6a-402f-a571-ef4b30211d38-e1704728765713.jpg

84 year-old Rachel Ramsey: “I can’t cook or eat in here because of the smell. It’s every day and every night.

“I have to eat outside my flat. I sit by the allotment or go to the bingo hall.”

Fiona.jpg


(Source: Lambeth Together)​

“We are committed to ensuring that Ms Ramsey feels safe within her home and we will continue to work with her to sort this issue. She is on the direct offer list awaiting a suitable property.”
 
Any advice on Lambeth Council installed smoke alarms. I was cooking a frozen pizza in my oven at it sent the Lambeth installed smoke alarms off.

They are sending me mad.

If I do any cooking Im always on edge in case the Lambeth smoke alarms go off
 
Gramsci said:
Any advice on Lambeth Council installed smoke alarms. I was cooking a frozen pizza in my oven at it sent the Lambeth installed smoke alarms off.

They are sending me mad.

If I do any cooking Im always on edge in case the Lambeth smoke alarms go off
Click to expand...
Is this in the correct thread?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
Vision Homes Council Housing Takeover - please sign the petition
Replies
7
Views
555
madshadow
M
I
Lambeth council magnolia paint
Replies
9
Views
657
WouldBe
WouldBe
editor
Lambeth increases the rent of council tenancies by £60-£75 PER WEEK
3 4 5 6 7
Replies
191
Views
11K
edcraw
E
Gramsci
Lambeth Council elections 2022
3 4 5 6 7
Replies
198
Views
10K
CH1
CH1
editor
Where to watch England vs Spain Euro 2024 final in Brixton
Replies
6
Views
485
madolesance
M
Back
Top Bottom